Posts Tagged ‘atheism’

First of all, if the 2nd Amendment is a “limited” right, then ALL of our other constitutionally guaranteed rights are also “limited.” I have to love it that the same people who want to “limit” the 2nd Amendment rabidly demand that there be no limits whatsoever to “the right to vote,” including not only convicted felons but now even also to illegal immigrants. If you are even considering “limiting” the 2nd Amendment and you are not for voter ID laws, then you are simply somebody to disregard as an ideologue. The fact of the matter is that “the right to vote” is an obviously dangerous thing, unless you happen to believe that the rise of the Nazi Party that was ELECTED is not a dangerous thing. In another example, recently the Palestinians elected a TERRORIST GROUP to power. Further, since we’re largely talking about illegal immigrants from Mexico when we discuss voter ID, let’s not forget the fact that in Mexico, if you do not have a voter ID, YOU DO NOT GET TO VOTE.

Now, one of the reasons I mention “illegal immigrants” is the fact that the shooter – Nikolas Cruz – IS HISPANIC. Liberals snarl that if we were disarmed from having “assault weapons” he wouldn’t have been able to pull this off. But how about this one: if we didn’t have HISPANICS he wouldn’t have been able to pull this off, either. If you’re going to ban the one, let’s ban the other. Otherwise you might start getting reasonable and realize that we have tens of millions of these weapons in the hands of decent, law-abiding people and just maybe we shouldn’t target all of them because of the actions of one miserable whackjob. But otherwise, let’s turn as much rage and hate on Hispanics for being Hispanic as we do on “assault weapons” for being “assault weapons.” Because, news flash, fools, that rifle Cruz used did NOT squeeze its own trigger. Cruz squeezed it and kept squeezing it.

What’s really funny – in the ironic sense of moral idiots who refuse to learn from history – is that we’ve already TRIED this and IT DID NOT DO A DAMN THING. Democrats banned what they created the term “assault weapons” (to mimic the military term assault rifle referring to a weapon capable of full as well as semi-automatic fire in order to artificially create a false equivalence between the two) and it had no impact on crime or violence. None. That’s why we don’t have it anymore. It lapsed, having been nothing more than a deprivation of the rights of millions of Americans.

What liberals want is to create and then keep taking us down a slippery slope, such that if the “assault weapons” ban (which is already a proven failure) fails again, well, we just need to keep banning more stuff, like handguns.

For those liberals in favor of applying limits to the 2nd Amendment, I simply ask you, what can I ban that YOU believe is a critical and fundamental right, given that you want to take away my right to defend myself and my family?

Here’s another one: the way the left wants to blame gun owners and people who advocate for the 2nd Amendment every time a gun is used to kill someone, please to explain why the hell we can’t demonize YOU in any jurisdiction with tough gun laws when a victim is first rendered defenseless and then a vicious predator comes in and attacks?

How about this little factoid from USA Today:

Killers continue targeting locations where guns are not allowed. Ninety-eight percent of public mass shootings in this country occur in gun-free zones — the Florida school being one of them.

How about if we start screaming that we need to purge the world of all proponents of gun-free zones so that we can be SAFE??? We need to BAN gun-free zones and criminally prosecute anybody who supports them.

Here’s another fact:

that 81% of police officers support arming teachers and principals, so that the real first responders — the potential victims — can protect the children.

Let’s BAN anybody who doesn’t believe in arming guards and teachers and even volunteer parents who are willing to pass background checks and have required training so we can protect our children on our schools.

It is a fact proven in every single situation we have faced that these mass shootings stop the moment a good guy with a gun shows up. A whopping majority of the time the killers kill themselves. Which kind of proves that guns aren’t evil; guns are tools. People are evil. And so if you’re going to start banning, ban people.

But, oh wait, liberals are already doing that. It’s called “abortion” and liberals have already banned 60 million people from having a right to live.

We talk about DACA and these poor, poor DACA kids who were brought here through no fault of their own and that means they should have a right to live here. Okay, fine. As long as you realize that 60 million times now liberals have ignored the very logic of their own hypocritical belief and kill innocent human beings who were brought into the world through no fault of their own.

Nikolas Cruz exercised his “right to choose” and his “right to his own body” and retroactively aborted 17 people. Abortion is death. And we now have a culture of death. And we ought to ban everybody who has in any way, shape or form contributed to this evil zeitgeist.

Fifty years ago there were more guns per capita in American hands than there are today. Fifty years ago we also had far fewer anti-gun laws and regulations and restrictions than we have today. THE KILLINGS WE ARE SEEING TODAY ARE NOT BECAUSE OF GUNS and anyone who isn’t a fool immediately realizes that something ELSE has changed. THE KILLINGS WE ARE SEEING TODAY ARE DUE TO GODLESSNESS.

Fifty years ago we believed in God and taught divine morality and therefore we believed in the soul and the sanctity of human life. We rejected “abortion morality” and the belief that innocent human beings could be exterminated like bugs. We are now talking about every single liberal being ten times more guilty of mass murder than the damn NAZIS.

And I’ll just say that if you believe in abortion and you believe in gun control, I’ll just quote your ideological buddy Adolf Hitler who said, “To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.” Along with Stalin. Along with Mao. Along with Castro and Pol Pot and Kim Jong-un. Because you are following the same damn pathway to hell on earth and somebody needs to ban your vile ass fast.

We have ALWAYS been a gun-culture in America because we have always been a FREE society and the most basic tenet of true freedom is to be allowed to have the damn right and freedom to protect yourself and what is yours from anyone who would try to take it. There are people, socialists, communists, atheists (who don’t believe in the soul and therefore cannot have any doctrine of free will given that they are forced to believe we are meat puppets who think the way we do simply because the molecules in our brains randomly happened to arrange themselves a certain way), liberals and Democrats, who do not believe in freedom. And these people who deny our freedom need to be banned.

Atheism and the communism atheism ultimately logically entails is without any question whatsoever THE most murderous worldview of any that has ever contaminated the human species. And atheism needs to be banned and atheists and communists alike need to be banned.

Let me simply point out that generals have always known that most human beings and most soldiers simply will not kill other human beings without a great deal of conditioning. And the primary barrier to killing has always been religious faith and the belief that this “enemy” is in fact a human being created in God’s image just like me. Amazingly, one small change was enough to dramatically increase American soldiers’ willingness to aim a rifle at an enemy and pull the trigger. During the Vietnam War, human-shaped sillouhettes were introduced. And soldiers became more conditioned to kill.

Today, our secular humanist atheism has spawned savage, vicious, vile video games that are to the human-shaped sillouhette what the atomic bomb is to a spear. Atheism and the ramifications of atheism has spawned this culture of death that we are now haunted by FAR more than we are haunted by guns that by themselves have never once so much as harmed anybody because it takes hate to pull the trigger.

And they need to have their asses BANNED because you yourself are participating in their murders if you DON’T ban them.

If we can limit constitutional rights and specifically limit certain components of those rights, we can certainly isolate out and limit atheism from the panoply of religious rights and ban atheism and the ugly worldview of hate and meaningless, murderous rampages straight to the hell it came from. So let’s do it.

But don’t believe me. Believe your fellow liberal traveler, CBS vice president and senior legal counsel Hayley Geftman-Gold who posted after an atheist gunned down 500 mostly conservative and Christian country music fans in Las Vegas:

We need to BAN liberal bias in our newsrooms and if they won’t ban these “reporters” and these “journalists” who are propagandists, we need to ban the entire publication. BAN IT. Because if you can ban the 2nd Amendment, you can ban the media. And damn you if you don’t, you hypocrites.

This punk turd, Nikolas Cruz, should never have been allowed to have any kind of gun. That is a fact that nobody is arguing. If you have something from the NRA saying that Nikolas Cruz should have had his guns, then let’s see it. This isn’t about guns. This is about a massive failure in a system that is broken in a whole bunch of ways. This pathetic loser showed “every red flag,” according to the New York Times. The turd posted a YouTube video of himself saying he wished to be a professional school shooter. He had obvious mental health issues. You’ve got government law enforcement agencies that failed; you’ve got government social services agencies that failed. The FBI was informed of his behavior but did nothing because they had been commissioned by Obama and by the Democrat Party machine to invest all of their resources into a witch-hunt against Donald Trump and the 2016 presidential election and the democratic will of the people itself.

But what does the left want? Amazingly, the left wants MORE power and MORE control in the very government that was just proven to be so damn broken!!!

The definition of insanity is giving the same government that continuously fails more power to fail even more while simultaneously stripping people of their God-given right to defend themselves against that very government, let alone all the horrible people that Democrats keep demanding we let out of our prisons to prey upon us again and again.

Feinstein explained that the Watch Lists are populated with “information derived from intelligence and law enforcement sources…” and are maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center. She further revealed that largest list, the Terrorist Screening Database, contains over one-million records but less than 5,000 Americans included on that list. Or, as Sen. Feinstein repeatedly said, Americans make up less than one-half of one percent of the Terrorist Screening Database.

And so anyone who is not in favor of massively banning immigrants is to be viewed as personally responsible for the mass shootings because we have lost any meaningful way to detect our monsters due to the massive number of immigrants whom Democrats rabidly protect.

How the hell are the FBI agents – you know, the ones who AREN’T wrapped up in political investigations started by Democrat ideologues and obviously rabid partisan ideologues within the FBI itself – supposed to examine a Nikolas Cruz when they’ve got more than a million potential terrorists invited into our country by the Democrat Party???

These fools who think like this need to be banned something fierce.

Here’s yet another example of Democrats being people who we need to ban: the death penalty which they rabidly oppose and play every single shenanigan there is to undermine it when they can’t ban it. Nikolas Cruz actually is willing to plead guilty to his crime. Why? To avoid the death penalty. Newsflash: the death penalty IS a deterrent, you fools. Especially if it is done swiftly and with certainty where we put these rabid human beings down like the rabid animals they are as soon after the crime as is humanly possible.

Let me return to Mexico – you know, the country with strict voter ID laws – that also allows families to have a process to commit a mentally unstable person against that person’s will. It’s amazing to me how liberals want more and more millions of Mexicans flooding into America but refuse to allow any of the actual good things that the country that sends them here actually follows.

We need to ban people who believe that anyone who is acting or posting crazy shouldn’t be taken off the streets and examined and treated until they are no longer a threat.

My God, I think of a family that is dear to me, who suffered with a young man who was schizophrenic. The young man KNEW he needed help and tried to get it, but there was only one crack to fall through after another. He used drugs like virtually all mentally ill people who are wandering around to try to self-medicate the pain, but he couldn’t get arrested literally to save his life even when police found all the drugs and drug paraphernalia on him. Because, after all, the left employs this “logic”

We are now indoctrinating and addicting an entire generation of young people into the use of mind altering substances, and I am simply going to guarantee you that the problems plaguing our society are going to increase beyond stratospherically.

The Democrat-created drug culture WILL be a nightmare. You watch and enjoy the horror show first on the news, then in your town, then in your home.

But no liberal, no Democrat, is ever going to accept responsibility for the hell they caused.

Which is why we need to ban the damn Democrat Party fast. The Democrat Party is the party of slavery and the party that fought a vicious war to continue the institution of slavery. It has been the party of abject evil ever since. And it needs to be banned something fierce.

If we’re going to start banning, then for God’s sake let’s start banning what truly needs to be banned.

Finally, we have laws against what Nikolas Cruz did. Did you know that? It is ILLEGAL to go to a school and start shooting people! But he did it anyone. Why on earth does anybody believe that criminals and psychopaths won’t still get guns if some dumbass makes it “illegal”?

Question from reporter: “But Dr. Carson, if a gunman walks up and puts a gun at you and says, ‘What religion are you?’ That is the ultimate test of your faith.”

Dr. Cason: “I’m glad you asked that question, because, not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say, ‘Hey, guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.'”

I want you to notice that I took these words from the video in which Huffington Post says in bold typeface, “Skip to 0:25 in the video above to hear Carson describe what he would have done if he’d been present at the shooting.” In other words, skip PAST the part where the reporter asks, “What would you do?” And Dr. Carson responds with what he would do.

It’s frankly amazing on one level. I mean, what in the hell is controversial about that? The argument to this side is literally, I WILL stand there and let him shoot me.” And of course, “I will stand there and let him shoot me until my Savior and Lord, the State, kicks down every single door in America and goes over every square inch of land with metal detectors and confiscates until it can account for every single one of the more than 300 million guns in this country. And PISS on the Constitution in the process.

Let me tell you why what Ben Carson said is such a horrifying sin in the religion of liberalism: because liberalism is a religion of radical submission and radical helplessness. You are to be helpless and submissive in your role as a member of “the State.” And liberalism is a MISSIONARY religion in that every liberal must force the rest of us to be as helpless and as submissive in the face of “the State” as they seek to be.

If you so much as BELIEVE or FEEL that you ought to have a right to protect or defend yourself, you are a blasphemer and a heretic.

Somebody got this point in their title parodying the leftist piece of truly lousy toilet paper known as GQ: “F*CK Ben Carson For Preaching Self-Defense.” Because we’re getting to the very core essence of what truly separates a liberal from a conservative.

The Bible frequently uses the metaphor of “sheep” to describe believers before their God. And yes, apart from the wisdom of God, which we should therefore seek, humans are described as helpless and stupid, like sheep.

If you are a liberal, don’t sneeringly tell me you don’t have a religious faith. Because YES YOU DO. Liberalism is a religion following secular humanism that replaces “God” with “Government,” with human government. And the priests of this religion are bureaucrats, and to them the words of Isaiah 53 – “all we like sheep have gone astray” – ring like music. We are poor, stupid, helpless sheep under liberalism. And Government is our God, our Savior, to whom we ought to helplessly submit.

And when it comes to weapons, the biblical metaphor couldn’t be more apt in describing what liberals’ want: the SHEEP don’t get to carry weapons. They are far too stupid and they would clearly only hurt themselves or one another. No, only the shepherd, only the bureaucrat’s designated force-bearer, can carry weapons.

Probably the most famous passage in the Bible, Psalm 23, the Shepherd’s Psalm, sums it up: “Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me.” God is the One who carries the rod and the staff, not the sheep. And liberalism is a rabid religion that keeps shrieking, “There is no God but Government, and Obama is His Prophet!”

AND THEY MUST STRIP YOU OF YOUR GUNS AND LEAVE YOU UTTERLY HELPLESS, BECAUSE YOU ARE A SHEEP AND IT IS BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE ONE TRUE GOD THE STATE TO THINK ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT YOURSELF.

You have the right to religious freedom if and ONLY If you are a liberal. But every other religion is blasphemy before liberalism and its One True God, the human State. And every other religion must ultimately be forced to SUBMIT and be HELPLESS. Like a good sheep.

This doesn’t just apply to guns; it is all encompassing. Allow me to give you another example of God vs. Government and the side liberalism takes:

The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the LORD Almighty. — Haggai 2:8

WHO does all the wealth belong to? Well, I think we all understand those words very easily: the LORD Almighty. GOVERNMENT. OBAMA.

Liberals are the faithful demanding that all wealth go to the One True God, the State. It’s not that liberals disagree with the Bible as much as they disagree on who “God” is.

I’ve written about this stuff before, of course. I wrote about 1 Samuel 8:10-22 and how a wicked people refused God as their king and wanted giant, powerful human government instead. I wrote about Daniel 2:31-35 and how Democrats have picked the absolutely WRONG side of history to be on as they side with the human government that will utterly perish before the coming Christ who as the Rock will destroy it.

These people worship human Government in place of God, and human government will ultimately burn in hell right along with them.

Sheep are helpless. Just as liberals want those whom they dole out welfare to for literally generation after generation after generation to be helpless sheep who cannot take care of themselves. And all you have to do to guarantee that you will be poor for life, that your children will be poor for all of their lives, that their children will be trapped in poverty all of their lives, and so on, ad nauseam, is to vote Democrat. Because they seek to trap you in a vicious cycle that you will never get out of and you will therefore always need to keep voting for them to keep you in.

Liberals take money from one group and dole it out to keep another group dependent and helpless. Like sheep.

Liberalism is the confiscation of wealth and the offering of that wealth to the One True God, the State. And the priests of this religion, the bureaucrats, distribute it according to their theology.

There’s more, of course: who says what life is and who gets to live? God, of course, and ONLY God:

13You made all the delicate, inner parts of my bodyand knit me together in my mother’s womb.14 Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it.15 You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.16 You saw me before I was born.Every day of my life was recorded in your book.Every moment was laid outbefore a single day had passed. — Psalm 139:13-16

And who gets to decide these weighty questions of what is life, what is sacred, who gets to live and who should die? God, of course. The State. The Black-Robed High Priests of Liberalism.

Which is why the doctrine of abortion and the support for that doctrine is tantamount to an act of religious devotion. It is an act of religious faith, for I the LORD your God gave you Roe v. Wade. And let all other gods be forced to bow down before Me, and let all who oppose my rule be torn limb-from-limb or burned with acid in the very womb in which I, Obama, formed him.

What is marriage? Who decides? Only God, of course. That’s obvious. We all agree with that. Jesus, the divine Messiah of the God of the Bible, summed up God’s way according to Genesis 2:22-24 when He described biblical marriage:

“Haven’t you read,” [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” — Matthew 19:4-6

Well, liberals rabidly and utterly reject that God. They have their own God, the State. And so we now have Obama, the divine Messiah of the God of the State, providing a radically different view of “marriage.”

Atheists can play their rhetorical word games and say, “If atheism is a religion, then off is a TV channel.” Here’s the problem with it: the very word “atheism” means, “no god.” Let’s acknowledge and then move beyond the problem with atheism as expressed by G.K. Chesterton: “When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.” Which corresponds with the admonition in Colossians 2:8 which says, “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.” I am making a different point here that strictly relates to the TV channel analogy; namely that atheism is espoused as a belief in the denial of something, but the very thing they are denying is such a quintessential part of who they are that the very word “theist” is the most prominent part of their own self-description. To wit: in the analogy that the atheist provides, “GOD is the TV. Religions are the channels. If it is off, maybe he’s dead or disengaged, but at least you admit there’s a TV.” . Just for the record, I can cite you MILLION of Christians who can easily use the same “logic” to rationalize that Christianity is NOT a religion. I googled the phrase, Christianity is not a religion, and got 86,000,000 hits. Their point is that “Religion is man’s way to reach God. Christianity is God’s way to reach man.” That many atheists don’t consider themselves “religious” is no more an accurate part of their perspective than that many Christians don’t consider themselves “religious.” The simple fact boils down to this: whether you are talking about atheism not being a religion, or Christianity not being a religion, the only way the proponents of either view are correct is if their belief (i.e., atheism or Christianity) is correct. If there is in fact a God, atheism is merely one of many false religious systems. And belief in God is NOT an essential part of a religious system, for the record, given that many Buddhists are actually atheists. Finally, the author of this actually quite-good article I cite above points out that the rabidness of the atheist and the tendency of the atheist to hate theists is every bit as fervent as it is the other way around. She points out, “Let me tell you: The angriest ones can be as malicious as a coven of Westboro Baptists at a veteran’s funeral.” In case anybody actually has the foolishness to doubt that, let me just point out that the very shooting that Ben Carson is the target of so much hate for describing how he would react was an ATHEIST who TARGETED CHRISTIANS.

My point is that liberals ARE worshipers. They are RABID worshipers. They merely choose to worship a very different God from the God of Christianity. And to the extent that they don’t worship the State, they worship themselves and their religion is about selfishly and self-centeredly obtaining their lusts and their desires through the power of the State and forcing others to provide these things for them.

I am beyond sick of liberals imposing their religion on me while they smarmily tell me that I don’t have a right to impose my religion on them. I’m sick of liberals perverting the Word of God and constantly seeking to turn me a sheep, as the Bible says I am, but a sheep of their God the State. I’m sick and tired of liberals telling me that I should be helpless, and that as a stupid, helpless sheep the only thing I’d do if I were allowed to have a weapon is hurt myself or some other innocent. So only the Shepherd of the religion of the State ought to be allowed to have weapons. I’m sick and tired of being told that I don’t have a right to impose my view of marriage on people as the people who tell me that impose their view of marriage on me with in-your-face-hypocrisy. I’m sick of liberals telling me that I’m crazy to believe that human life begins in the womb when they can’t produce a single example of a single human who didn’t begin in the womb. If their mothers had aborted those liberals, those liberals would have been killed. A child in the womb is human by virtue of the taxonomy of her parents, she is a being by virtue of the fact that she is a living thing: she is a HUMAN BEING. Let’s go through the taxonomic system that classifies every single living thing with our unborn baby: That “fetus” (which is Latin for “unborn child” by the way) is classified from the moment of conception as Kingdom-Animal; Phylum-chordata; Class-Mammalia; Order-Primate; Family-Hominid; Genus-Homo; and Species-Sapiens. Just like every human being whose life is precious unless you are describing human value in the hateful religious system of liberalism. These things are simply facts, but the religion of liberalism doesn’t give a damn about facts; it is a rabid religious faith. It is in fact a totalitarian religious faith that is missionary in its determined intent to impose itself on heretic unbelievers in Government.

We’re watching the Middle East and the world melt down due to President Barack Obama’s morally idiotic foreign policy. Right now we’ve got five million refugees fleeing Obama’s collapse, and millions more are going to come behind them. And where the hell are they going to go? And we’re ultimately going to see why Obama’s epic fail in the Middle East will result in America’s epic fail. We’re watching the complete vacuum of any kind of moral or military leadership being filled not by the United States but by Russia and now Iran. But there’s something in the strategy of the only man who actually HAS a strategy – Vladimir Putin – that I want to close this piece on the religion of liberalism with. Marco Rubio – the man WHO PREDICTED the invasion of Syria by Russia which so stunned and caught Obama off guard – NAILED Putin’s strategy:

“Vladimir Putin is deliberately targeting the non-ISIS rebels,” Rubio explains. “And here’s why: If he’s going to wipe out all the non-ISIS elements on the ground in Syria, then they can say: ISIS or Assad, there are no other options. We killed all the non-ISIS people.”

“And at that point, he’ll be able to force the world to support Assad, and that is what he is doing.”

Vladimir Putin is crushing all the non-Islamic State rebels, leaving only Assad’s regime and Islamic State. And his plan is then to force America to support Assad’s regime as the only viable alternative.

By commission and by omission, Barack Obama is the world’s leading persecutor of Christians in the history of the world in terms of the sheer, mass numbers of Christians whom have suffered under him and as a result of his colossal failure.

You shall have no other gods before me, says liberalism. And every Christian who says or believes otherwise shall be devoted to destruction. Because liberalism is a rabid, religious faith. And all we like sheep have gone astray and need to be brought under the Stalinist boot heel for our own good and for the good, for the praise and for the glory, of the State.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. — Romans 1:18-23

I was on one of my hikes out in the desert when I came upon this scene way out in the middle of nowhere that caused me to marvel (you can click on it to enlarge it in a new window):

I state for the record that I did not assemble this or see it assembled. It was there when I walked a route that I walked for the very first time. It simply stands as a brute fact. It is what it is. The only question is how it came to be the way you see it.

Somehow, in some amazing demonstration of the power of evolutionary forces, a strong wind managed to lift one rock atop another. And then, without knocking that rock over off its new evolutionary perch, the wind managed to stack two rocks side-by-side on top of the second rock. Amazingly – and the miracle of evolution is clearly on display here – a fifth rock, and then a sixth rock and a seventh rock and then ultimately an eighth rock, were all successively and successfully stacked one atop the other by this marvelous Darwinian breeze.

Now, maybe you believe that. Or maybe you’re not what the Bible labels “the fool” (Psalm 14:1) and you immediately realize what a total pile – LITERALLY – of abject idiocy the notion that this rock pile just happened all by itself clearly is.

I truly did marvel when I saw this pile of rocks and contemplated the implications. Because I was very well immediately aware that SOMEBODY had very clearly put this together from the determination of a mind to create something where without a mind and a decision to create there would have been nothing. And everybody who isn’t a complete fool clearly knows that somebody assembled this monument; it didn’t just “happen,” it didn’t “evolve” by some random natural process. And as I shall shortly demonstrate with something called “science,” I don’t care how many billion years you want to wave at this monument to claim that it happened by itself. The longer you want to think it took, the worse the fool you are. This is a one-to-one, apples-to-apples, direct comparison: the rock pile did not happen by random, chaotic chance, everyone knows, because it is simply too complex of a structure to have happened all by itself. And the whole universe is SO much more complex that it is beyond foolish to claim that it happened by itself when we all know that something as simple as this stupid rock pile couldn’t have happened by ITSELF.

And this principle is true throughout any legitimate science. I was watching a documentary on Julius Caesar and his defeat of the Gallic chieftain Vercingetorix at the Battle of Alesia in 52BC. Archeologists were able to fully discover the fortifications at Alesia by flying overhead and doing detailed photography of the area. And what they did was look for lines that were simply too symmetrical or too straight for nature alone to have been able to produce. Because they were demonstrating something called “common sense” that every evolutionist and atheist has none of whatsoever.

It’s stupid enough to claim that something that nature cannot produce was somehow produced by nature, such as the straight, symmetrical lines revealing ancient Roman fortifications or the rock altar I photographed. But it is a level of stupidity beyond “dumb and dumber” to say that while nature cannot produce symmetry or design, it can somehow produce the infinitely GREATER complexity of the people who produce the things that even fools understand that nature cannot produce. Think about it; the atheist, the secular humanist believes that obviously nature cannot produce the simplest kind of order or symmetry, but these same fools believe as an act of RELIGIOUS FAITH AND NOTHING ELSE that nature can produce infinitely MORE complex order and symmetry in the so-called “evolution of life” that is GOOGOLPLEXIANS of times more complex. If nature cannot even produce so much as a straight line or a simple pile of rocks, please do not insult your own intelligence by claiming it somehow produced the Mona Lisa.

I’ve got another one for you to riddle me. There’s just an awful lot more to reality than the eye can see. Things are vastly more complex than they appear. Science itself has taught us that. See, according to science, we’re a collection of particles, right? Atoms, molecules. There are 70 trillion cells in a human body consisting of about 7*1027 atoms (that’s a 7 followed by 27 zeros!). Atoms are by definition mostly made up of empty space. And so for one thing, we’re not solid. Truth to tell, we’re actually FAR more water (about 60%) than anything else. So then why are we solid? You’ve got theories, but we don’t really know. “We are spirits in a material world” is as plausible as anything “scientific.” And then what about this one: given that we’re a collection of particles, how or why are we a whole? How can this collection of particles consisting of atoms numbering in the 7 followed by 27 zeroes be one thing? And what about this notion of “I”: “I” am one thing! How can “I” be an “I’, let alone one thing as opposed to many different parts? What about this notion of consciousness and individuality? How does science explain that? Have you ever heard a scientist attempt to explain these things to you?

You see, just as we can know BY SCIENCE that we CANNOT see everything with our physical senses – such as atoms, particles and molecules – we can also know that there is a realm beyond science, beyond the physical. We can know that just as there is a realm smaller than our senses, that there is also a realm bigger than our senses. There must be a realm that is beyond science, beyond the physical, a realm that has been called “supernatural,” but is surely metaphysical, above and beyond the physical.

That’s why the Bible uses the word “fool” to describe such people who deny God and the supernatural. It’s frankly beyond merely idiotic.

Atheists and evolutionists mock religious people for believing that a transcendent, personal, omnipotent God can do all things. But what do THEY believe in? The too-idiotic-to-even-qualify-as-“fairy-tale” notion that if something sits around for long enough, a MIRACLE will somehow happen. And no, boys and girls, time doesn’t possess magic power. All time does is sit there and do nothing.

If I were to employ the evolutionists’ argument back at them, it would go like this: I promise that I will refute evolution and prove that it is bogus. In 4.5 billion years. Because all they do is turn that very same argument upside down and claim that something somehow happened that long ago when no one can even begin to prove that it did. It’s an assertion, nothing more.

Which invites the question as to the nature of ALL of “nature.” We don’t just have the problem of explaining how the pile of rocks somehow got assembled into that neat little monument. We have the problem of the origin of the individual rocks themselves according to the Big Bang theory of cosmology held by nearly all physicists today: all matter, all time, all energy and all space suddenly exploded into existence at some finite point of time in the past very much as if Someone had declared, “Let there be light.” It’s as Robert Jastrow described it in God and the Astronomers: “For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Those rocks in that picture did not always exist; they came into being because they were caused to exist by something (or of course Someone). And it happened in a manner that confirms the account of the Book of Genesis chapter one. Jastrow – one of the great scientific minds of the 20th century – also stated: “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” And after that “Let there be light” declaration that same Somebody somehow – and we weren’t there to see Who or how any more than we saw who assembled the pile of rocks in the above picture – stacked a pile of rocks on top of one another to assemble our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, all living things. And the fact that we are here as a result is very properly indeed the result of “supernatural forces” and properly called a MIRACLE.

Atheists and evolutionists once confidently declared that there were a septillion (that’s a one followed by 24 zeros) planets capable of life. These arrogant, ostensibly knowledgeable fools were so wrong it is unreal. Every single time they send taxpayer-funded prayers to the heavens in the form of enormously powerful radio communications, satellites, unmanned spacecraft like Voyager, etc., it amounts to perennially unanswered prayers to their god or gods. Just as I contemplated the pile of rocks on the trail and ask the question, ‘How did this get here? Could it just have happened?’, we must likewise contemplate the brute fact of the universe that we observe: the nature of the fine tuning of the universe is mindboggling when you consider it. How did the fact of universe and the fact of life get happen? Did Someone create it – which is the prima facie conclusion of any creature possessing common sense – or did it just assemble itself the way we know that pile of rocks in the picture above could never have assembled itself? When you realize how many things had to happen in precise sequence and with infinite precision for us to be here at all – rather than residents from those septillion planets visiting us or contacting us the way we’re trying to contact “them” – it should occur to you to question why we are here at all. How did just the right sort of solar system to contain the planet that contains the rocks that yielded all the necessary building blocks for life get here? How did just the right sort of moon that orbits the planet in just the right way to result in a planet that contains the rocks get here? How did just the right sort of star with just the right characteristics to result in just the right sort of solar system and just the right moon result in just the right planet to contain those rocks get here? And I mean, I can go on and on and on. Because the level of complexity within the system of the universe is so far beyond mind-boggling that it is obviously the result of supernatural mind determining to create.

Do you see my point here? When you can’t even so much as glance at a simple pile of what, seven rocks arranged one atop the other, what kind of fool do you have to believe to think that ALL of the many INFINITELY MORE COMPLEX systems and sub-systems that compose the universe all around that rock pile got here by chance without an Intelligent Designer?

When you start to think about the system of the universe and the billions of sub-systems and the trillions of sub-processes within the system, you have to mock the fool who believes that all that we see around us just somehow happened by chance. Because that fool is in all actuality a far worse fool than the fool who would look at the stack of rocks above and conclude that it happened by chance.

Look at that picture above again and consider the complexity of those seven rocks piled one atop the other and realize that it is far too complex a system to have happened by any act of random nature. And then go look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you are not vastly more complex than that system which you obviously know was intelligently designed.

And then keep reading to comprehend just how appalling the case for godless evolution truly is and the foolish idiocy you have to believe in order to deny the reality of God.

The Time Problem

To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis (21.5)

The only premise that all of the precellular theories share is that it would be an extremely long time before the first bacterial cells evolved. If precellular life somehow got going, it could then conceivably begin to crank out, by some precellular process, random strings of nucleotides and amino acids, trying to luck into a gene or a protein with advantages which would lead to bacterial life. There is no evidence in life today of anything that produces huge quantities of new, random strings of nucleotides or amino acids, some of which are advantageous. But if precellular life did that, it would need lots of time to create any useful genes or proteins. How long would it need? After making some helpful assumptions we can get the ratio of actual, useful proteins to all possible random proteins up to something like one in 10^500 (ten to the 500th power). So it would take, barring incredible luck, something like 10^500 trials to probably find one. Imagine that every cubic quarter-inch of ocean in the world contains ten billion precellular ribosomes. Imagine that each ribosome produces proteins at ten trials per minute (about the speed that a working ribosome in a bacterial cell manufactures proteins). Even then, it would take about 10^450 years to probably make one useful protein. But Earth was formed only about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago. The amount of time available for this hypothetical protein creation process was maybe a few hundred million or ~10^8 years. And now, to make a cell, we need not just one protein, but a minimum of several hundred.

So even if we allow precellular life, there is a problem getting from there to proteins, genes and cells. The random production of proteins does not succeed as an explanation. Other intermediate, unspecified stages must be imagined. We could call these stages post-precellular life. By whatever means, life’s evolution through these stages would have to be time-consuming.

“Time-consuming.” There’s a rather gigantic understatement for you. Try to write that number down: 10^450 years, which is 10 with 450 zeroes after it. That is a number that makes our national debt even after the Obama spendaholic presidency look so infinitesimal that any kid ought to easily be able to solve our national debt crisis with his lunch money by comparison. And it makes the length of time since our universe exploded into being some 14 billion years ago (1.4×10^10 years) and the earth formed 4.6 billion (4.6×10^9) yeas ago look tiny and insignificant by comparison.

4.6 billion years ago might seem like a long time: 4.6 with nine zeros after it. That is, unless you compare it to the number “1” followed by a MINIMUM of FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY freaking zeroes. We’re not talking about billions, we’re not talking about trillions, we’re talking about a number so vast only a true mathematician has ever even HEARD of it before: a Novenquadragintacentillion, at least according to our dictionary of Big Ass Numbers.

There’s just not enough time literally in the whole universe. And that 10^450 years is just for ONE protein when you need to multiply that 10^450 years by several hundred proteins. That last sentence of the first paragraph is actually staggeringly optimistic, considering that in this case “several hundred” is actually SEVERAL THOUSAND:

“A typical bacterium requires more than 4,000 proteins for growth and reproduction.”

So understand the dilemma: you need random trials requiring 10^450 years to form just ONE protein; but you actually would need at least another 3,999 more proteins that will take just as long to randomly generate after you finally generate that first one. Each one is going to take you about another 10^450 years’ worth of random trials to generate! And finally after 10^450 a.k.a. a novenquadragintacentillion years multiplied by “more than 4,000 proteins,” just what are the odds that that first protein that you made would still exist so many trillions times trillions times trillions of years later??? Just what are the odds that you would have all 4,000-plus proteins available at one time and in one place to make the assembly of that simplest cell possible???

How long did it take whoever built that rock pile to complete the job? I’m guessing a few minutes. Because our Creator God gave that person a miraculous mind and a fearfully and wonderfully made body to think about creating it and then an amazing body to actually make it happen. But the simple scientific FACT of the matter is that, no matter how long you want to claim the universe is, it STILL wasn’t anywhere NEAR enough time in the universe even times a million billion trillion to “evolve” the simplest cell there is apart from that Creator.

If you don’t believe that rock pile assembled itself by purely natural processes without any Intelligence, but you believe that everything else – including humanity – got here the very way you deny that that rock pile got here, the Bible is truly right to call you “fool.”

You should begin to understand that “evolution” is the most fanciful fairy tale there IS. When we talk about evolution, we’re talking about something that not only didn’t happen, but COULDN’T even POSSIBLY have happened. At least if you accept actual SCIENCE rather than the atheistic philosophical nonsense masquerading as “science.”

You need to comprehend this: legitimate science can’t even begin to explain how just the proteins necessary for the simplest bacteria cell evolved by chance. And that the fool who postulates that “evolution” created the magnificent human mind that is so much more sophisticated and miraculous than any supercomputer ever designed is someone who seems to lack so much as that bacteria cell for a brain. Because we’re no longer talking about the simplest bacteria cell the origins of which science can’t begin to explain or even explain away; we’re talking about a brain jam-packed with billions of infinitely more complex cells in infinitely more complex arrays.

And the human brain has an apparently very clear purpose: to allow a soul the ability to freely interact with its body. But that of course, is denied by evolutionists:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” [Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1]

There is absolutely no question to even a fool like Richard Dawkins that life very much has “the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” But being a fool, he proceeds to simply dismiss the fact that the Bible declares in Romans chapter 1 and verse 18-23: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Yes, all complicated things were very self-evidently designed for a purpose. And that Designer is God. Don’t be a fool and deny the obvious. It is OBVIOUS to even Richard Dawkins that the universe was “designed” for “a purpose.” The prima facie case is obvious and if you want to claim that there is no Creator you must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is NOT a Creator, rather than telling a bunch of fanciful atheist fairy tales to describe how things happened the way the most primitive cave men told stories about how we have wind because the trees are moving and swaying and creating the ensuing wind by their actions. The burden of proof necessarily falls upon the unbeliever; but they have performed a bait-and-switch by the most disingenuous means.

You’ve got your pseudo-scientists who claim that this amounts to some argument about “science” versus religion. I call them “pseudo-scientists” because if you understand the history of science, these people are very clearly speaking out of complete ignorance – and legitimate scientists never speak out of such ignorance. The so-called “science” these pseudo-scientist ideologues embrace is every bit as “religious” as any serpent-handling Pentecostal who ever lived.

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

You can’t use physical science to arrive at or derive the laws of logic; they are self-evident only within highly particular worldviews that are uniquely based on the presuppositional and foundational belief in the supernatural and the divine. We today have the denunciation of “Western logic” by the postmodern movement. Because Western logic is based upon the reality of “either/or.” And the moment you allow Western logic profoundly powerful “either/or” arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument begin to pour in and drown the godless fire of atheist thought. Our Western laws of logic were derived from Greek thought, which was highly DUALISTIC. There were the gods and there were men. There were the non-material abstract and yet substantial Forms and there was the material world of change. You cannot accept the laws of logic and not accept the distinction between the material and immateraial world and the existence of the immaterial world which bequeathed us with the Form of logic that we aspire toward without being a pathologically dishonest hypocrite and an intellectual parasite. And as you contemplate the existence of “truth,” recognize that either our minds and our brains were created by a Truth-Knowing Being to know truth, or they are the result of a entirely random and unguided process and therefore no reason whatsoever to assert the capacity to possess “truth.” And in the same way, when it comes to the rise of science, any notion of genuine science pitted against genuine religion is a total fraud and fabrication. Modern science uniquely arose out of Judeo-Christian presuppositions from a geographical place and a philosophical worldview called Christendom. It arose out of no other worldview and never could have arisen out of any materialistic worldview. Science was allowed to rise because Judeo-Christian-worldview inspired men – ALL publicly professing Christians – believed that there was an orderly universe that was created to operate on orderly principles and that we as image-bearers of the Creator possessed the mental faculties to marvel at the work of the Creator and “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” – as Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist who ever lived, declared.

Atheistic evolutionists are frauds and thieves who usurped an entire foundation upon which logic and science originated. True logic and true science mock these people, because true logic and true science come uniquely from a worldview that they reject. Their feet are firmly planted in midair. But these people are such complete fools that they walk like idiots without a foundation toward nothing.

This ideology-masquerading-as-“science” also amounts to a bait-and-switch regarding science as “testable” or “falsifiable” versus “creationism” which is NOT testable. Charles Darwin gave as the standard of “testable” evolutionary “science” this definition:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” — Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, p. 158

But a brilliant lawyer exposed that “falsifiability” standard for the total fraud that it is merely by replacing a couple of words in the otherwise exact same definition:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

And she then proceeded to ask, “Would the Darwin believers take that standard as a scientific test for God?” Would they accept the burden of proving that “God could not possibly have created” us???

Let’s consider the human brain and its implications on the foolish theory of evolution. Are you a meat puppet mindlessly and soullessly dancing to the tune of random evolutionary forces? Atheist-ideologue pseudo-science declares yes, you are:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.” — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Is whatever thought that is floating around in your head merely determined by how your random brain atoms randomly arranged themselves? Or do you think rational thoughts because you are the rational, thinking image of a rational thinking God according to Genesis 1:26-27 who said “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).

Which are you?

I can go on literally all day citing evidence that scientists and atheist/secular humanist philosophers claim that human free will is nothing more than some philosophically useless illusion, and that you are nothing but a meat puppet entirely conditioned by your DNA and your environment. Both atheistic-ideologue pseudo-science and the atheistic philosophy based on that atheistic-ideologue pseudo-science readily dismiss the notion of anything legitimately called genuine free human will. It is nothing more than an illusion, so please go back to your pasture, all ye mindless and soulless herd animals, and chew your cud until slaughter-time.

If we are in fact created in the image of an invisible Creator God, then we are NOT meat puppets, for the God who created us in His image is no meat puppet. If there is no God and we are products of mindless, soulless evolution, then we are and can be nothing else and nothing more than meat puppets.

If it is a fact that you are nothing but a herd-animal meat-puppet with no mind and no soul, there is necessarily another terrifying truth: you have no moral responsibility. And the worst people in the history of the world by any “moral” standard have no moral responsibility, either. And this terrifying fact is necessarily true both on an individual level and on a societal level.

On the individual level, if free will is an illusion, as any materialistic system science or philosophy asserts, then how can you hold someone criminally or morally responsible for their actions that result from no free will of the person who is committing them?

Further, if Darwinism is true, then Social Darwinism is necessarily entailed: if natural selection is your process for evolving into better creatures, in which the fittest members of a species survive, and both inferior members of species and inferior species themselves must perish to give way to the stronger, then why should it not be so in how we govern the world? Why shouldn’t we help evolution by eradicating the unfit so that the more fit can better survive in a world of finite and scarce resources? Adolf Hitler understood that under any consistent Darwinian view, there were the predators and there were the victims – and he made his Germany a predator. Maybe you want to argue that it is false that big fish eat the smaller fish or that lions eat the gazelles. But you’re wrong because they really do. Nazi Germany was without any question THE most “scientific” society on earth during the time leading up to World War II, and a consistent Darwinism was precisely their philosophy: if Darwinism is in fact “science,” then have the damn courage to embrace the crystal clear implications of that science and embrace some form of Nazism or Stalinism which both embraced evolution and thus made horror such as has never before been seen possible.

A guiding philosophy of Nazism was completely and fundamentally compatible with any “science” of Darwinism that had the decency to be consistent: they called it “lebensunwertes leben,” or life unworthy to be lived. And they killed off all members of society that were not sufficiently fit to be adequate Darwinists. And if you are an evolutionist and you do not think the precise same way, you are either a coward and a hypocrite for not having the courage to be consistent and live out your view or you are tantamount to a slack-jawed idiot for not having the ability to logically comprehend the ramifications of your own worldview.

You can mock that above link between godless Darwinism and Nazism all you want, evolutionist. But first I ask you to explain how your teacher Charles Darwin – the full title of whose book was, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” – precludes you from believing yourself to belong to a “favoured” master race and then possessing the justification to wipe out all the other races you compete with “in the struggle for life.” And I’ll explain how my Teacher Jesus of Nazareth precludes me from doing so.

Adolf Hitler made the mindless German crowds who supported him the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.” That is an inherently and implicitly and intrinsically Darwinian argument. And that fact is not altered now as intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society. Modern Darwinists want to use their hypocritical and self-contradictory system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”

And Adolf Hitler clearly stated in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – had prior to Hitler correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

Regarding Hitler’s hatred of Christianity, Metaxas further writes, “Hitler’s attitude toward Christianity was that it was a great heap of mystical out-of-date nonsense. But what annoyed Hitler was not that it was nonsense, but that it was nonsense that did not help him get ahead. According to Hitler, Christianity preached “meekness and flabbiness,” and this was simply not useful to the National Socialist ideology, which preached “ruthlessness and strength.” In time, he felt that the churches would change their ideology. He would see to it.”

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger. Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.” And unlike Christians and Jews with their weak and insipid morality, they were Nazis who were willing to grab the Darwinian bull by the horns and do whatever was necessary, no matter how morally heinous. Just as any true Darwinist would do if he or she had the courage of conviction.

Hitler used the word “Christian” in his some of his speeches before deluded crowds of Germans many of whom had long-since largely abandoned true religion under the profound influence of a generation of profoundly anti-religious and in particular anti-Jewish and anti-Christian German scholars such as the well-known Friedrich Delitzsch who wrote:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But to his inner circle Hitler said very different things than what he said publicly.

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

“The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me. He certainly rabidly abandoned Judeo-Christianity as few other human beings ever have. And while the Nazis were cynically willing to exploit Christianity or anything else they could twist to manipulate people into following them, it was put in the form of “Almighty God has created the German people to be a race of supermen” kind of garbage. But think about that for a second: created by WHO and by WHAT PROCESS? Certainly NOT created by the “Jewish God” of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible; and certainly NOT created according to the creation account in the “Jewish Bible’s” book of Genesis. So WHO created and by WHAT process? By Darwinian evolution, of course. God threw His random evolutionary dice and His throw came up Nazi snake eyes. And Hitler would tell you that lie and any other lie he needed to tell you to twist your mind into following him.

Proto-Nazi atheist and secular humanist philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Friedrich Delitzsch gave way to full-blown Nazis such as Martin Heidegger and Ezra Pound. And the toxic atheistic and secular humanistic evolutionist ideas of these toxic men had toxic consequences.

Furthermore, the most brutal form of human government that ever existed was communism otherwise known as “state atheism.” Every single officially state atheist society has been a violent and vicious opponent of human dignity and human freedom. Every single one.

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

“Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual forces of this world, rather than from Christ”

– continue to bear murderous fruit. They seize upon the imperfect results of imperfect political system that depend upon an imperfect pursuit of a religious worldview, and replace it with a demonic system in which the Government BECOMES God and proceeds to crush everything and every one that gets in its way.

Nazism and Stalinism have one thing in common: godless socialism. The intent of these movements was to replace God with Government in which Government became the Savior and the people were encouraged if not viciously driven away from embracing any worldview that had a place for a Creator God in it.

And today we have people every bit as wicked and every bit as willing to commit acts of incredible vicious genocide as Hitler or Stalin or Mao (socialists all) – and I’m not talking about insane jihadist Muslims such as fill the ranks of Islamic State. No, I’m talking about leftist environmentalists who have top access to leftist politicians. Listen to some of their quotes:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“Humans on the Earthbehave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

Realize the left today would murder people on a scale that would even shock Adolf Hitler, if they could just get the power they wanted.

You don’t even so much as qualify as a cow to these people. I mean, in their own words, you don’t even make it to the level of a slug. At least we merit equal status to a cancer tumor. I don’t think even the Jews under Hitler got that little respect.

These rabid leftists evolutionists believe that earth randomly evolved. And in order to protect the result of random evolution they believe they must wipe out somewhere between half and 95% of all randomly evolved homo sapiens. You can bet none of these people are going to volunteer to walk into the gas chambers first, mind you.

Realize “the absurdity of life without God.” Realize that apart from God, there is and can be no true meaning, purpose or value in your existence. And that is precisely how the state atheists and the secular humanists treat you the moment they get power over you: like a farm animal that can be slaughtered and should be slaughtered. And simple factual history proves it. It’s happened before and it will very likely happen again. The ideology might change, but the evolutionary/Darwinian worldview that underlies it guarantees the same contempt for the dignity of the human spirit that we’ve seen before.

Whatever you are, what you are not is either morally intelligent or in any way wise. Rather, as Romans 1:22 puts it, “Professing yourself to be wise, you became a FOOL.” A fool so captured by empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense, as Colossians 2:8 points out, that you abandoned the real world for an atheist fairy tale in order to childishly ignore the authority of God and thereby ignore His moral commands.

Unbelief does not come from intellectual causes or objective analysis of the data or any form of legitimate science. In fact science exists BECAUSE of the Judeo-Christian worldview and it arose in Christendom based on the Judeo-Christian worldview and the Judeo-Christian worldview alone. Rather, unbelief is a moral collapse by which wicked people do not seek God because they refuse to be responsible to Him and acknowledge that He alone is sovereign and He is the Creator and they the creatures. They resent any limitation on their ability to do as they please, or, according to their meat-puppet, herd-animal doctrine, whatever random string of atoms masquerading as a thought or a desire compels them or stimulates them to mindlessly act out. They resent any limitations to their mindless DNA-puppet-dangling animalistic autonomy. They refuse to honor any moral boundaries that they despise and so they therefore refuse to acknowledge the Boundary Maker.

What they do is not wise, it is not intelligent, it is not moral and it is not “science.”

So if you want to think of me as being an idiot for believing in God, that’s just fine; provided you realize that YOU are the idiot of all idiots and frankly THE most idiotic idiot who ever lived in comparison to people like me.

I mean, please don’t sneer condescendingly at me for believing in God given the fact that evolution is a fairy tale for fools.

A theologian, commenting on Romans chapter one, wrote:

“Truth quietly remains what it is amid all the clamor and he shouting against it and in the end judges every man.” [R.C.H. Lenski, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, p. 93]

And unless you can patiently exlain to me how Hitler and Stalin were somehow bad atheists, and unless you can establish whatever the hell “evolutionary morality” is, then it stands as a simple FACT that the murderer is no different from the martyr and the rapist is no more praiseworthy or blameworthy than then humanitarian since none of us are truly free to be truly responsible for our actions. And in fact if evolution is true, then rape is actually PRAISEWORTHY as we “dance to DNA’s music.”

Question: Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around? Because “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.” Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.” Now go ye and do likewise. Unless something inside of you screams “NO! I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

Rape is merely one more horrible, demonic thing that evolution justifies, if not necessitates, in the same vein that it justifies/necessitates social Darwinism, Nazism, Stalinism and every OTHER horrible “-ism.” And all under the guise of “science.”

If this were anything resembling true science evolution and atheism and secular humanism would have been thrown onto the ash-heap of failed ideas. But we’re NOT talking about anything resembling legitimate science; we’re talking about a fanatical religious movement masquerading as science.

That was one of the powerful realizations I had years ago as I considered the FACT that if there is no God, then all things are equally possible, and there ARE no boundaries and no morals and that everything I believe is right and everything I believe is wrong are nothing but mere arbitrary constructs of a constantly evolving culture. And I am NOT the kind of thing that dances to the music of DNA or follows some constantly-shifting morality like some mindless farm animal as Hollywood tells me what is right and wrong this morning; I am a human being created in the image of a rational, moral God Who will one day hold me accountable for what I did in this world that He created and placed me in.

I believe in God as the reason we have a universe containing life in it because it’s every bit as obvious and every bit as self-explanatory as it is for me to believe that those rocks in that pile didn’t happen by themselves. God designed us to be free and to be accountable to the nature that He imbued in us as His image bearers. And He created a world in which to place us.

I am free because God set me free. And when I look upon the stars at night and contemplate their wonder, I give praise and honor to the God who is so much bigger than the universe that He created. I thank Him for giving me a place within His vast and beautiful creation. And I glorify Him for loving me as I look up in divine awe searching for His face.

It definitely was. I wouldn’t call that the true experience of self-transcendence that is the focus of the book, but it was profoundly liberating. It convinced me it was possible to have a much better life and be a much better person, and some action was required to figure out how to be more that way more of the time. It’s certainly something you can’t recommend without serious caveats.

Okay, let’s recap. Any form of “spirituality” that does NOT rely on the sort of drugs that men slip into women’s drinks to make them easy to rape is the “esoteric dunghill of religion.”

This fool Sam Harris teaches that the only path for an atheist to become “spiritual” is to ignore the “serious caveats” that are the obvious results of shutting reality off with drugs.

You need to get the joke that is atheism here: THESE are the people who mock Christians for not living in the real world!!!

There’s nothing new under the sun, the Bible declares, and it sure nailed it with atheists: they’ve been offering this “version” of reality for some time. In the 1960s it was Timothy Leary with his “Turn on, tune in, drop out” approach. And so today it is the secular humanist left that is championing the destruction of America through legalized drugs and the drug addiction that will come with it. Because how in the hell else can these perverted, degenerate people have any chance at being “spiritual” otherwise???

Atheism is parasitic. It cannot exist unless it has some superior worldview to emulate even as it mocks the very thing that it is emulating.

One example is the first rise of atheism as carried out in a vicious orgy of violence a.k.a. The French Revolution. One of the leaders of that atheism descent into hell was stabbed to death in his bath by a woman hoping to end the endless beheadings. And Marat’s death was celebrated in a painting as follows:

At the height of the Reign of Terror in 1793, David painted a memorial to his great friend, the murdered publisher, Jean Marat. As in his Death of Socrates, David substitutes the iconography (symbolic forms) of Christian art for more contemporary issues

So the very people who most denied Christ were reduced to trying to depict their hero as the very Christ they mocked and hated and denied. Because at their cores they are hypocrites and liars and have neither shame, nor honor, nor decency, nor virtue, nor integrity of any kind.

That’s all atheism can do: cynically and perversely exploit the genuineness of the very thing it mocks and denies in order to have any pseudo-legitimacy whatsoever.

There is no atheist art. There is no atheist music. There is no atheist culture. There is no atheist morality. There can be no law based on atheism. And there very definitely isn’t any atheist “spirituality.” All they have is an obscene, grotesque mockery.

Augustine wrote, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.”

The great scientist and mathematician Blaise Pascal said, “There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus.”

Atheists implicitly accept this God-shaped vacuum in every human heart, this restlessness, that God installed until we find our rest in Him. But they propose to fill their voids with drugs instead of with the Spirit of the God who made them.

I took my bike to the dealership to have some repair work done and – having forgotten to do so beforehand – more or less randomly grabbed a book of a shelf that struck me as the thing to read in the haste of the moment as I ran out the door.

It was The Battle For Truth” by David A. Noebel. I’d read through it before years ago, but it was a great refresher.

Noebel accurately describes in his introduction secular humanism as both a worldview and in fact a religion that is at hostile warfare with Judeo-Christianity for the soul of America. And then he states the following:

The influence of this Humanistic way of thinking is prevalent in every sector of our lives. Consider, for example, the way that atheistic evolutionary thinking has become the accepted and undisputed truth within the scientific establishment and for those who are teaching the next generation of young people. Although the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in the existence of God, 90% of the leadership of the National Academy of Sciences consider themselves to be atheists. Their atheistic dogma reaches into every public school of America via naturalistic evolutionary propaganda. Evolution is not treated as a theory, but as an unquestioned fact. “In China,” writes a Chinese paleontologist, “we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.” — Page ix, The Battle For Truth by David A. Noebel

Ben Stein documented that last point is profoundly and terrifyingly true in his documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Stein documents, among many other things, a number of tenured professors who were destroyed for nothing other than committing the heresy of believing in Intelligent Design rather than in random and mindless evolution. He specifically compares the Stalinists in their ideological purges to what we see going on today in American colleges and universities as the most intolerant people on earth impose their belief system. Here are a couple of links to quotes from that movie – 1, 2, – to give you a flavor. I also found this insight into the film insightful.

I submit to you that fact and that fact alone is why China is doing so much better than America and why China is rising while America is falling.

China and Russia – as evil as both nations are – don’t deserve to die. America does. Because as evil as both these nations are, America under the control of the Democrat Party is even MORE evil. And as a result of Democrat Party godless fascism, we have so pissed on the vision of this nation as “one nation under God” that it is beyond laughable.

THAT is why Russia and China are both in the Bible in the last days and America is nowhere to be seen.

I didn’t used to understand this. I mean, is America more wicked than China? Than Russia? After all the awful things these nations have done and the Bible says will YET do?

Now I’ve come to realize something: when you were once a nation that powerfully called upon the LORD – as America did – and then you turn your back on Him and spit in His eye and say ‘We don’t need you any more,’ you subject yourself to a FAR harsher penalty of judgment than those nations that never turned to the Lord in the first place.

As a powerful example, think back to World War II during the most critical moment of the war as the D-Day Invasion of Normandy began. The war would have turned in an awful direction had America failed to land in Europe that June 7, 1941.

FDR did. And the American people by the millions sank to their knees in factories, in offices, in shopping centers, in homes, and prayed that God would spare this nation and grant us success.

And now when America shakes its new socialist-collectivist fist at God and snarls, “We don’t need you any more!” God says, “That’s fine. I don’t need YOU any more, either. And One of Us is great enough and powerful enough to live while the other one dies.

God is not mocked. And this nation that once worshiped God but now worships abortion and sodomy and socialism is a mockery unto God. And we will fall because of it.

The crisis facing America is that the Democrat Party is the party of the 90% of the “intelligentsia” who are atheist and who have – having gotten their foot in the door – acted like fascist thugs to purge everyone who disagrees with them from journalism, from academia, and from government bureaucracy.

The Democrat Party is the Party of the Middle Finger Salute to God.

And we like sheep have been led astray. And sheep poorly led are invariably sheep led to slaughter.

One of the things that makes living a moral life – keeping the 10 commandments – discouraging and disheartening these days is the fact that people all around us are NOT keeping them. If you’ve been around kids you know how kids invariably look at other kids as the measure of what should and shouldn’t be okay. When exasperated children say, “But all the other kids are doing it!” parents offer the knee-jerk response: “If all the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?” And that’s a valid point, of course. But your kid isn’t asking to jump off a cliff; he’s asking to stay out late or he’s asking to go to a concert or something else that he simply doesn’t view as tantamount to leaping off a cliff to his certain death. What that child sees is a fun thing that the other kids are doing that he can’t do, and as a child who has himself been confronted with “the cliff” question, I can tell you that it might end the argument but it hardly ends a kid’s angst.

It would be a very different world if someone received heavenly electroshocks from God every single time they violated the 10 commandments. But that isn’t the way it happens. David and later Jeremiah famously asked the question we’ve all likely asked at one time or another: “Why do the wicked prosper?”

It’s not merely that so many people break God’s laws all around us and seem to get away with it and even seem to get rewarded for it that creates discouragement, however. It’s also that there is an entire worldview that explains this apparent state in terms of a presentation that God’s laws aren’t really even “laws” at all but merely intolerant edicts written by intolerant, superstitious and frankly bigoted human beings who invented God as a means to control and dominate people. Sometimes it very much seems like the whole world system has been designed to confuse and discourage God’s people into wondering why we bother to follow God’s commands. In place of God today we are instead being offered a Darwinian system of evolution that is being held up as “science” and therefore beyond question.

We’ve all heard about the Ten Commandments in the Bible. And it occurred to me that it would be interesting to explore them from the viewpoint of Darwinian evolution – consistently applied – and see how the results strike your moral intuitions. I submit to you that sometimes the best way to finally put your trust on God’s system is to consider the results of man’s systems and see their end. That’s ultimately how David began to receive his answer to his question of why the wicked prosper: in verse 17 of Psalm 73 David said, “then I understood their final destiny.” We need to be able to do that with Darwinism.

When Jesus Christ and His Word are your source for ideas, you simply do not need to be afraid of the competition. The best antidote to all the lies that surround us is the truth. And so I would like to take some time to survey the truth: the truth about science and where it came from; the truth about some very interesting issues in which science is surprisingly ignorant; the truth about a giant flaw in Darwin’s presentation; and finally an examination of what Darwinian “ethics” would look like to show you its end. And what I want you to see is that God’s law makes absolute sense in light of its vicious Darwinian competition.

So I begin with the origin of science: how did we get science? Should we view it as incompatible with Christianity? Well, it turns out that we got science from Christianity. Here’s an interesting fact I link to in my notes: The scientific method itself and the founder of virtually every single branch of modern science was discovered by a publicly confessed Christian. Dr. Rodney Stark, a sociologist, “researched the leading scientists from 1543 [– the beginning of the scientific revolution –] to 1680 and found that of the top 52 scientists, one was a skeptic, one was a pantheist and 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as devout because of their zeal.” We find that science arose only once in human history – and it arose in Europe under the civilization then called “Christendom.” Christianity provided the worldview foundations necessary and essential for the birth of science: The earth was not the illusion of Eastern religion and philosophy, but a physical, tangible place. And the material world was not the corrupt and lower realm of Greek religion and philosophy, but God created it and called it “good.” And God endowed the capstone of His creation, man – as the bearer of His divine image – with the reason, the curiosity, and the desire to know the truth. And God – who designed an orderly and law-abiding universe and earthfor man – made man the caretaker of His creation. And thus the great astronomer Johannes Kepler described his project as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” And that is frankly why 106 of the first 108 colleges in America were founded as religious Christian institutions. My point is this: is Christianity at war with the essence of science? NO!Atheism is at war with the essence of science. It is simply a demonstrable lie that legitimate science is at odds with Christianity; and this lie should not trouble you no matter how often you hear the lie or who repeats it.

There’s another myth that I would like to briefly examine; and that is the myth of science as some monolithic field that has answered all of the profoundly important questions. That is how it is frequently presented in the media; but when you listen to scientists themselves you get a very different story. I’ve recently began watching a Science Channel program called “Through the Wormhole.” And I’ve been shocked at just how little science genuinely knows when the scientists and not the news media discuss science.

The big problem with the Big Bang is that the Big Bang requires a Big Banger. All matter, all energy, all space and all time came into existence. You need somebody to make that “POOF” happen – someone who Himself is not limited by matter, energy, space or time. Only the Bible identifies Him: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” We need that Guy. We need God.

The strongest argument against “science” disproving the existence of God is SCIENCE.

Let me leave you with one last example right out of the Bible: Jeremiah 33:22 records a statement by God that the stars in the sky are “countless.” That may not sound like that big of a deal, but consider: In 128BC Hipparchus claimed to have counted the stars, with their number being 1,026. That number stood as the official count of the stars of the sky for seventeen hundred years until 1600AD, when Kepler counted the stars and concluded that Hipparchus had double-counted some: and the updated number was 1,005 stars. Was God wrong? Well, with the aid of the Hubble telescope scientists now estimate that there are 70 sextillion – that’s a number followed by 21 zeroes – stars in over 1 billion galaxies. And that number actually exceeds the number of grains of sand on all the seashores on earth, to complete the proof of Jeremiah 33.

We don’t have to be afraid to debate the truth. We don’t have to be afraid of the facts. We don’t have to play games with the numbers and the evidence in order to support our faith. THAT’S WHAT THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO DO. Another way to put it is this: don’t let science or anything else tell you how to read your Bible. Because you are a LOT more warranted to let your Bible tell you how to read everything else.

So with that as a primer, let’s begin to contemplate Charles Darwin and his Darwinian evolution. There is one primary reason that Darwinism is accepted as a “valid scientific theory” and “Creationism” or even “Intelligent Design” is not so accepted: and that is that we’re told that Darwinism passes the bar of being “testable” or “falsifiable” but theories that depend on God in any way are NOT so testable or falsifiable. We’re told that we can’t put a Creator God under a microscope and observe Him creating. But let me show you how utterly fallacious that standard is by showing you Darwin’s “test” for his theory: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Well, Darwin himself said the eye as a refutation of his theory gave him cold fits. He wrote in a letter: “I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!” A couple of things leap out of that: the first thing is that Darwin is clearly not an objective scientist who is willing to go wherever the evidence leads; he is passionately determined to get God out of the picture. It makes him literally “cold” and “sick” to see any evidence of a Designer, doesn’t it? With that said, let’s talk about Darwin’s own dilemma with the eye. The thing about an eye is that it doesn’t work unless all the components are properly in place. It’s not like you can grow an eyeball but not have any optical nerves and still see a little bit. You’ve either got the whole eye or you’ve got squat. I read Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker during a period when I was genuinely doubting whether God really existed or not. And when I saw his account of how the eye developed a little tiny bit at a time, it was a laugher for me, even being the skeptic that I was. On his account, the first eye began to form from a photoreceptor cell on a depression in some early creature’s body – as though we all need to go home and check our belly buttons every day lest an eye is starting to grow out of it. And as Dawkins presented this bizarre story of how the eye formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications,” his story just got worse and worse. It amounted to a fairy-tale for atheists. It had to happen this way to keep God out of the picture, so that’s clearly how it happened no matter how implausible or even ridiculous it sounds.

But there is actually an even more glaring problem with Darwin’s “falsifiability” than most Christian thinkers have attacked. Let’s look at the Darwin’s falsifiability standard again: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” That is a nearly impossible standard to defeat: we have to prove something is absolutely impossible. But let me try doing the same thing with my Creationist theory so you can see the bait-and-switch that’s going on here: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have possibly been formed by God, my Creation theory would absolutely break down.” My point is that Creationism and Intelligent Design have been ruled out without any consideration by the modern scientific establishment because they are “not falsifiable” when the Darwinism that they want to embrace is actually no more falsifiable than our Creation theories are. The only difference is that when atheists tell their stories about how time and chance and random mutation managed to pull off one impossible miracle after another, OUR STORIES MAKE A LOT MORE SENSE! You need to understand that there is a true spirit of delusion and hypocrisy at work in our world.

So science itself originated out of Christian thought on fundamentally Christian precepts of intelligence and design and the science that arose out of and because of Christianity clearly isn’t incompatible with Christianity; so science really truly doesn’t know that much about the ultimate nature of the universe and what it DOES know confirms rather than contradicts that our universe and life itself was the product of supernatural Intelligent Design; and so Darwinism amounts to an atheist polemic that has support merely because it illegitimately rules out its rivals on utterly fraudulent grounds. Are you with me so far?

With all of that as our backdrop, let us now ponder the implications of Darwinian morality. As a young man with a mangled faith, wondering if God truly existed and cared about how I lived, I realized something: if evolution is true and there is no God, then there is no such thing as human morality, either. And I literally not only could but frankly ought to have been utterly amoral if that was the case. As soon as that thought occurred to me, however, it frightened me far more than it reassured me. Because I had not been raised to be amoral. Everything I had been taught in my entire life up to that point had directed me to believing in right and wrong. And it was a dark thought indeed that there was no God and morality flowed from Darwinism. Because Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.

Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works. Assume that’s true for a moment. And then look at the world around you. Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism. What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society. If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way. If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.

Modern Darwinists want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.” Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around? Because “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.” Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.” Now go ye and do likewise. Unless something inside of you screams “NO! I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

I like to watch nature programs on TV, although it is often hard – because the stories end so bleakly. In one episode, I watched a dominant female baboon whose had baby died because she couldn’t produce milk snatch the baby of a healthy mother. And of course that baby died because the dominant baboon female couldn’t produce any milk but wouldn’t return it to its mother. In another program, I watched a lion cub get trampled by buffalo when the herd suddenly changed direction; its pelvis was crushed and it was dragging itself around by its front lets with its hind legs useless. What happened? Was there a lion welfare program? No. The mother and its siblings and the pride abandoned it after a few days, and it surely died horribly. Because in nature the weak, the sick and the injured are a liability and even a threat to the rest of society and they should die so the strong can live. That’s the way the world often is in the aftermath of the Fall.

Have you ever wondered why God allows animal suffering like that? Let me offer an answer: because God wants us to look at the animals and see that He created us different. We are NOT animals; we are made in the image of a rational, moral God. And we should not live or think like beings lacking the Imago Dei.

Now, in the time that I have left, let me finally get to the essence of the 10 Commandments. God told Israel in Exodus 20:2, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery .“ Allow me to restate that in a slightly different way: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you OUT” of that animal state of bondage. You will NOT live like animals in some Darwinian state; instead you will live like My people whom I created and whom I love and hold to a higher standard than any beast of the field.

Why is it that the first five commandments focus on man’s relationship to God? Today, our government schools are trying to abandon the commandments focusing on God but somehow keep the ethics of the last five. A US District Court Judge actually tried to cut the Ten Commandments down to six. One pastor recently preached on that and said, “The educators are attempting to enact the ethics of the second half of the Ten Commandments which have to do with not lying, stealing, etc. without taking heed to the first half! They are trying to teach young men and women how to love their neighbor without first training them to love God! All such attempts will fall short, because unless you first love God, and have God living in you, it is not possible to live out his character, which is what loving your neighbor is all about.”

In light of what you have just heard on Darwinism, let me sing the same song again: because we are NOT to live like animals; we are NOT to live like a bunch of creatures who invent our own meanings and values for ourselves; instead we ARE to live in the light of our relationship to our Creator from which our love for our neighbor flows. We are to live up to the image of God in us as humans. And frankly if we truly love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind and strength, and if we truly have the love of God in Christ in our hearts, we cannot help but love our neighbors as we love ourselves. It flows out of us like water flows out of a spring.

There’s a powerful reason for this: it derives from the fact that community is central to the heart of the Trinity. There’s a theological term in Greek called “Perichoresis.” It means, “to dance around.” The divine dance within the Trinity. It derives from passages such as John 14:10, in which Jesus asked, “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?” The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. The Father loves the Son and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit cooperate together to bring joy to the Father. You have every element within the Trinity that you need to have complete community. God did not have to invent community the way man invented the wheel; community was central to the heart of God.

You can’t give what you don’t have. If God were strictly one in the most rigorous sense, as Allah is in Islam, where would we get true, genuine community? When God created man in His own image, according to Genesis 1:27, how was it that Adam and Eve were relational and communal beings unless community were an essential part of the essence of the God who had created them? When you love your neighbor as you love yourself, as taught in both the Ten Commandments and by Jesus, what else are you doing but modeling the love that was essential to the “divine dance” of the Godhead before the Creation of the world?

You don’t get that from Darwinism. In fact, you don’t get anything good from Darwinism at all.

In allowing the demonic doctrine of Darwinism, God allowed a very stark contrast between His way and the way of fallen man. Joshua told the Israelites in Joshua 24:15, “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.” And like the Israelites of old, we too have a choice to make. The resurrected Jesus tells the Laodiceans in Rev 3:15-16, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” We need to stop living with one foot in the “survival of the fittest” world of Darwin and the other foot in the “love your neighbor as yourself” world of Jesus and truly choose this day whom we will serve. There is a gigantic gulf between the “vicious animal” world of Darwinism and the “image of God” world of Christianity. There are two natures – the selfish animal nature of Darwinism and the selfless divine nature of God – that are profoundly and fundamentally opposed to one another. And they are at war within you.

The Ten Commandments as Jesus taught were not given to the descendants of animals, as Darwinism teaches; they were given to the children of God who love Him and want His love to flow through them to others.

Let’s pray that we may be radical followers of the Ten Commandments as they were taught in both the Old and New Testaments. It’s evolution vs. the Ten Commandments; it’s Darwin vs. Jesus. Who will be the true winner in your life?

Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, Newtown. Liberals love to bring up these massacres as “evidence” that we need to ban guns.

But the thing is that, apart from some bizarre Hollywood film, there has NEVER been a single documented case of a gun EVER rising up by itself and deciding to start shooting people.

Liberals are free to try to refute me by documenting cases of guns developing independent consciousness and choosing to go on murderous rampages. Until then, my statement stands as fact.

But now let’s briefly consider the worldviews of the people who actually pulled the damn trigger of those guns. Let’s look at the belief systems of the PEOPLE who committed those murders. You know, rather than contemplating the worldviews of guns that non-liberals understand DO NOT HAVE WORLDVIEWS.

I welcome atheists to explain in detail how it would be impossible for mankind to ever “evolve” into the kind of alien cultures that wickedly prey on the weak and kill every sentient being they can get their tentacles on that we watched in movies like Independence Day. Remember that signature line from the film:

President Thomas Whitmore: I saw… its thoughts. I saw what they’re planning to do. They’re like locusts. They’re moving from planet to planet… their whole civilization. After they’ve consumed every natural resource they move on… and we’re next. Nuke ’em. Let’s nuke the bastards.

Given that liberals love to demagogically and slanderously characterize conservatives in these terms, I demand that evolutionists explain to me how human beings could never so “evolve beyond human morality.”

Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor… unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

I challenge the atheist with his implicit faith in evolution to demonstrate how it could never possibly happen that human beings could so “evolve beyond human morality” that we would likewise be “unclouded by conscience” and “delusions of morality.” Especially given the sheer number of human beings who have clearly DONE so.

I submit that there is little question that we are in fact as a culture “evolving beyond human morality.” Just take a look at the Supreme Court openly considering imposing sodomy in place of marriage while we re-elected the first openly pro-sodomite president. Which openly flies in the face of the entirety of human civilization and all previous “human morality.”

Liberals WANT the morality that was based entirely on Judeo-Christianity and the Judeo-Christian worldview to “evolve.” That is their most cherished goal.

Now, on my worldview of Judeo-Christianity, I have a very firm rebuttal to the Columbine killers. You did NOT “evolve” beyond human morality. Rather, you were created in the image of a holy God. And you will be held accountable to the morality that God created you to live out. What do you have in your moral arsenal to respond to this crisis, atheist?

Right now, according to Judeo-Christianity, the Columbine killers are screaming in hell. In a trillion years, they will be screaming in hell as God imposes the justice upon them that they denied to their victims. In a trillion times a trillion-trillion years, they will be viscerally screaming in hell in refutation of the vile atheist crap they believed that motivated their actions. They were profoundly and wickedly wrong; and all eternity will attest to that FACT. What punishment do YOU have to deter these moral monsters from committing these terrible crimes, atheist?

It is with this in mind that I recall the famous words of the liberal Supreme Court Justices expressed their opinion that the Ten Commandments – including the one about “Thou shalt not murder” – be forcibly taken down from shcools for the following reason:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments… [which] is not a permissible … objective.”

Was it worth it, liberals? Was Columbine and all the other horrors that have followed worth your adventure into godlessness? Are you glad that Eric Harris and Dyland Klebold were never allowed the opportunity to read, meditate upon, and yes, perhaps even to venerate and obey, the Ten Commandments? Was it a good thing that disturbed people with an urge to mayhem were never exposed to the one reason NOT to indulge their murderous fantasies? If you have a superior reason not to murder than the Judeo-Christian one that you purged from society, perhaps it is time to share your secret.

As Loughner and Tierney grew closer, Tierney got used to spending the first ten minutes or so of every day together arguing with Loughner’s ”nihilist” view of the world. “By the time he was 19 or 20, he was really fascinated with semantics and how the world is really nothing—illusion,” Tierney says. Once, Tierney recalls, Loughner told him, “I’m pretty sure I’ve come to the conclusion that words mean nothing.” Loughner would also tell Tierney and his friends that life “means nothing,” and they’d reply, “If it means nothing, what you’re saying means nothing.”

And of course it DID mean nothing – expect to those famous secular humanist atheist thinkers who basically share in Loughner’s moral idiocy.

I’ve described precisely WHERE the belief system – that words mean nothing, that the world is really an illusion – of Jared Loughner originated from: it came from the philosophical systems and worldview of the left – from existentialism, from postmodernism, from secular humanism. And I’ve pointed out that these leftist ideas have CONSEQUENCES. These systems of thought don’t sit in the ivory towers of the secular humanist liberals who invent them. They spread like the malignant thought cancers that they are.

I’ve similarly posted this refutation of this mindless atheist evolutionary nihilist crap by Dr. Gleason Archer many times, so it isn’t hard to find:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”

Go ahead, secular humanist liberal. Go ahead, atheist. Show me how what Dr. Archer is saying doesn’t follow. Show me how the more you scramble something with random and by definition arbitrary evolutionary “progress,” the more ORDER you’ll get. Show me how you’re correct in asserting that mind necessarily comes from mindlessness rather than from Mind. Show me how your drivel is anything other than pure degradation – as St. Paul so eloquently states in Romans chapter one (in which St. Paul also points out that some cultures can sink so low into the moral sewer that it will welcome sodomy just as we are doing RIGHT NOW).

Let us also, through the writing of Dinesh D’Souza, consider what would happen to two tribes if one was religious in worldview and the other was atheist:

The Reverend Randy Alcorn, founder of Eternal Perspective ministries in Oregon, sometimes presents his audience with two creation stories and asks them whether it matters which one is true. In the secular account, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba. You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely. In short, you came from nothing and are going nowhere.

In the Christian view, by contrast, “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are created in His image, with capacities to think, feel and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He has a perfect plan for your life. In addition, God gave the life of His only Son that you might spend eternity with Him. If you are willing to accept the gift of salvation, you can become a child of God.”

Now imagine the two groups of people – let’s call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe – who subscribe to these two worldviews. Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every thought and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. — Dinish D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity, pp. 15-16

We’ve actually seen this experiment played out in actual human history as we’ve seen the rise of an America founded upon the Judeo-Christian worldview versus the society of the godless French Revolution and its resulting Reign of Terror; versus the rise of godless Marxism and its degeneration into state atheist Stalinism with over forty million of its own people murdered during peacetime; versus the rise of state atheist Maoism and its murder of over sixty million of its own people during peacetime; versus the crushing of the human spirit in state atheist Cambodia where over a million were murdered in the Killing Fields; and versus the godless tyrant regime of state atheist North Korea and the fact that the entire nation is dark at night.

Which is precisely why we are moving in the direction of socialism and communism today. Because the Democrat Party consists of secular humanists, liberals, atheists who all have the same agenda: to reshape society by reshaping the economies of the world in their image.

You want to ban something? I suggest we ban a godless left-wing State that has all the guns versus a disarmed and oppressed people who were promised Utopia but have nothing but misery and the very sort of propaganda that we are seeing right now in America to feed them the manure of self-serving lies.

I would suggest banning that instead of going the opposite direction as Democrats demand.

Let’s continue our tour to Aurora, Colorado and the warped worldview that perpetrated it. He went from murderer to Muslim. Which given the rabid tendency of Islam to produce terrorists isn’t that far of a stretch.

The Sandy Hook gunman worshiped the devil and had an online page dedicated to Satan, a former classmate revealed, as his childhood barber recalls Adam Lanza never spoke and would stare at the floor every time he had his hair cut.

Lanza’s worshiping page had the word ‘Devil’ written in red, Gothic-style letters against a black background, Trevor L. Todd told The NationalEnquirer, something which he said was ‘weird’ and ‘gave him the chills’.

The FBI are trying to piece together his smashed up hard drive to see if his online footprint will reveal any motive for the killing, but they strongly believe he made use of devil-worshiping and suicide sites and boasted of his murder plans on message forums.

I actually saw claims by atheists that this turd was a “Christian” because his desperate, troubled mother took him to church a few times.

You moral idiots, I can not only walk into a garage, but even lie down on the concrete and start calling myself a “car.” If Adam Lanza was a “Christian” because somebody else took him to a church and he sat in the pew, I guess that makes me a “car.” Let’s see four of you moral imbeciles climb into me and start driving me down the road on my nonexistent wheels. I hope I’ll get really crappy gas mileage, just to irritate you.

Let’s get one thing straight. Rather than banning guns, let’s try banning all these idiotic and depraved worldviews instead.

Now, some of you are shouting that that would violate the Constitution. But that never stopped you leftists before. Just as it’s not stopping you now as you stomp all over the 2nd Amendment.

The day that you secular humanist liberals manage to melt every gun down and turn it into ploughshares – as the Holy Bible declares that Messiah will one day do during the Millennium when He reigns as King of kings and as Lord of lords – then you won’t be a crazy fascist nutjob. Until then, you are crazy fascist nutjobs. Because the simple fact is that you CAN’T ban guns; you can only pass laws that prevent LAW-ABIDING citizens from being able to legally buy them as criminals couldn’t give less of a damn about your stupid laws.

Secular humanist liberals stupidly think that human nature is something infinitely malleable, something they can mold and shape by replacing God with “the State.” They foolishly think that the GUN has the depraved worldview rather than the mind of the person who is pulling the trigger. They think that they can control human behavior by controlling human environment.

In reality, they are the very ones who are producing these sick, evil minds. In reality, when you criminalize guns you only allow the criminals who don’t give a damn about your stupid laws to possess them. In reality, when you criminalize guns, you only keep law-abiding citizens from having the means to protect themselves.

By the way, Adam Lanza parked his vehicle in a fire lane. I know that’s impossible, because it’s illegal to park in a fire lane. But that’s what he did. That’s the “respect” psychos have for your stupid laws. That’s how successful all your stupid laws are in deterring crime. And in the same way, NONE of the bans or regulations that Obama is proposing as he hypes and demagogues Newtown would have done ANYTHING to prevent the very mayhem that he is so cynically exploiting.

How does it? How does abrogating the right and the ability of self-defense to the government – a government whose president literally fearmongered to take away the police as he deceitfully demagogued the sequester – do that? Why should I surrender my own security and protection as a law-abiding citizen to a president who literally threatened to withhold the police protection that I would as a result of his policies depend on for my survival unless I agree to his massive tax hikes? Why should the American people make themselves hostages to an incredibly cynical political agenda?

Under secular humanism, i.e., under liberalism, no one is responsible for their actions – just as no one is to be given any credit for their hard work or the wealth that they earn as a result of their efforts – and therefore ANYBODY can go nuts at any time and therefore NO ONE should be allowed to possess a gun even as no one should be allowed to work hard and keep the wealth they earned. Except liberals and the government they erect to advance liberal fascism. Society is to blame when murders murder; society is to be credited when rich people work hard and become rich. Individual responsibility and individual credit alike are anathema to the left. We are herd animals; only the herd matters.

Every single tyrant regime on earth – whether it be Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or Kim Jong-Un’s North Korea – seized guns from the people before they imposed their godless agenda. Every single one. And now we’re following the same path toward slavery and the ultimate crushing of the human spirit.

That was the whole point of the 2nd Amendment: it was to be the people’s protection against future government tyranny.

Since we’ve already seemingly decided that the Constitution isn’t worth its weight in bovine manure, why don’t we just cut to the heart of the matter and ban something that will actually stop the mayhem??? Why don’t we ban secular humanism? Why don’t we ban atheism? Why don’t we ban murderous political systems masquerading as religious systems like Islam does?

In reality, over 55 million innocent human beings have been murdered by Obama’s demonic abortion hell pits. As opposed to the relatively miniscule number of children killed in gun homicides. If you care about children, why do you smile sweetly at the millions of precious babies murdered by your abortion??? Why should anybody give one damn when holocaust baby murdering liberals demand children be “protected” by fascist gun laws? And why is it that it is LIBERAL cities like Obama’s home city of Chicago – rather than the pro-gun conservative areas – where all the children are being murdered as law-abiding people are rendered defenseless and helpless? Why is it that the murderous policies of liberalism become the basis for even more murderous policies of liberalism?

That’s why when the beast of the Book of Revelation comes, there will BE no guns for people to protect themselves with. And every single Democrat will eagerly worship the beast and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.

You’ll get yours, Democrat. In the exact same place where the Columbine killers are already getting theirs. Your day is coming.

As a P.S. of how liberalism is to blame for these savage murders, it turns out that thirty years ago, a family could petition a court to declare a family member crazy and have him or her committed. But guess who decided that was inhumane? You guessed right: ACLU liberals. Liberals, understanding that liberalism is a mental disease, figured that it was better to keep these psychotic lunatics outside where they could vote Democrat than locking them up and putting them in rubber rooms where they belong.

As a P.P.S. of how liberalism is to blame for these savage murders, it similiarly turns out that Hollywood liberalism is responsible for both the violent movies – which glorify violence – and the video games that literally teach kids how to kill while desensitizing them to the violence they commit. And again, liberals, apparently understanding that they are entrenching a violence-laden culture, could do something about this problem they created if they wanted. But they would rather cynically exploit their culture of violence by blaming it on guns. And of course, on Republicans.

Should I add a P.P.P.S. about liberals and rap music that glorifies violence, hostility toward women and the lowest form of gang-banging nihilism???

Few casual liberals realize the fact that the entire economic premise underlying economic Marxism flows from a hostility toward God and toward religion.

Atheism and a spirit of hostility and hatred toward God and toward religion is at the very core of Marxism. In the words of Karl Marx:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

What did Karl Marx mean by this?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today. And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves. But rather than the people rising up in rage and seizing what Marx declared was theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, the people were instead happy in their religion, which according to Marx had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage. Marx acknowledged that in his day, religion was the order of the world; but he determined – and in fact succeeded – in imposing a NEW world system. Since religion is nothing but an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage. The only “real” reality is economic reality. And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force. Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

The eight commandment in the Holy Bible is “You shall not steal,” and the tenth commandment is, “You shall not covet.” Both ultimately flow from violation of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Marxism – as Marx acknowledged – overthrew this system and imposed one in which the State replaced God. And where God in the Bible had commanded man NOT to covet anything that belonged to his neighbor, Marxism was in fact BASEDon coveting. “Hey, look at those damn rich people! They’ve got everything! Let’s take their stuff!” Because apart from that looking over the wall at your neighbor’s house and coveting what he had and becoming angry that he or she had things that you did not have, Marxism never gets off the ground.

The sin of Achan as described in Joshua chapter 7 (especially 7:21) follows this order: first you covet, THEN you steal. And thus economic Marxism, based on atheism and upon replacing God with the all-powerful socialist State, first ordains abolishing God, then ordains materialism and demagogues coveting, and then ultimately empowers the all-powerful government that they have erected to steal in the name of the people.

The book of Ephesians 5:5 identifies coveting with idolatry. And this idolatrous coveting is a root-sin from which all others flow. Covetousness comes from idolatry because you are taking God off the throne and replacing Him with yourself – or in the case of Marxism, with the State – in God’s place. We covet what belongs to others because we have a misplaced value system. As our desires and our pleasure are directed more and more toward more material things, we covet and begin to feel entitled to take – or allow the State to take – what others have built and worked for. And many people as a result of this system have a seething anger toward those who have more than they because their unrealistic expectations aren’t being met. God created us to find our fulfillment and our happiness in Him, but Marxism – and liberalism – says piss on that. God is an illusion, and we can take what we want from others to make ourselves happy.

“reveal this dark secret that lies at the deepest recesses of the human soul, which is our susceptibility to become slaves. It’s there. It’s ready. It can pounce at any moment and transform us into serfs.”

Rabbi Lapin points out that King Nimrod didn’t actually come out and say, “Let’s build a tower.” Rather, he said, “Let’s make bricks.” And united the people in the endeavor of making bricks. And this is important, as Lapin explains:

Bricks are really important things here. Later on in the five books of Moses, ancient Jewish wisdom highlights the fact that that an altar — an altar to God must not be built of bricks, right? It has to be built with stones.

Why? Because this tension between the bricks and stones is absolutely crucial. Bricks and stones are a biblical metaphor for the way people should be stones, and the way we are easily pulled to be bricks.

Two differences between bricks and stones.

Number one, every brick is the same as every other brick. That’s the whole point. They’re totally interchangeable. If you want to turn people to bricks, you are able to turn them into interchangeable social economic cogs that can be just plugged around society.

The second thing about bricks is they’re made by man. Stones are each unique. When we have a tradition in Western civilization that man is created the image of God, what it really means is that just as God is unique, so is every single human being is unique, just like a stone.

Don’t allow other people to turn you into bricks, retain the personality of a person for which you are created.

It’s a difference between “yes, I can,” and “yes, we can.” […]

And one way it really works is that in every epoch, there is always going to be somebody who tries to seize power. What these 11 verses — these nine verses in Chapter 11 tell us is here are the things you have to watch out for. Here are the things that a potential tyrant is going to do in order to seduce you.

Number one, he is going to have a tower. Now, a tower means reaching for the skies — appealing to everything that is great in human nature.

Now, look, any leader, whether you’re taking care of your family, whether you’re running a business, whether you’re a military leader — you know, military recruiters don’t say: Hey, come join us. The food is horrible. You’re likely to get killed and you’re going to be a horribly hot — they don’t do that. Step forward and play a role to defend your country, be all you could be. You appeal to the highest in human nature.

That’s what tyrants learn to do as well.

And we don’t need God. We don’t need stones. We don’t need anything that God created because you are great, people are great. All of this is going to be built with bricks and we’re going to make you all interchangeable. That’s why tyrants will do exactly that.

Conservative thought emphasizes that individuality of the Bible as told by the God who created us in His image. We’re not interchangeable bricks unified by an all-powerful State, we’re individual stones. But Barack Obama is firmly rooted in man as bricks. He says of small business owners, the most individualistic people of all, “You didn’t build that. Government did.” But back in this ancient time, just as they were when Karl Marx emerged onto the scene, people had been worshiping God and content in their religion. But then this King Nimrod came along. The Bible described him as a “hunter of men.” Why? Lapin explained:

Why on earth would this one man, Nimrod, be identified as a hunter? Because he hunted, not animals, he hunted people. Not to kill them, he hunted people to seduce them into becoming his subjects and to allow him to become their master.

The new idea is — and is presented as the Babel blueprint. This is not long forgotten story. This is actually something which is as relevant today as it will be tomorrow, as it was when Robespierre was conducting the French Revolution. The principle is always the same.

The two competing ways of organizing human society: One is the Abraham vision of individual independence, individual accountability, God-centric — versus the idea of centralized control.

So, Abraham gives the vision of individual independence, which always has to include economic impendence. That’s absolutely crucial. And sure enough, Abraham, first man in the Bible described as a wealthy man, a blessing, a good thing. Not a curse — a good thing.

And what is it that binds all of these interchangeable bricks that Marxism and liberalism want us to become? Mortar. And what is mortar? Lapin again:

Yes now, in Hebrew, mortar is very related — same word really as the word materialism. And you can actually even hear the similarity transfer into the English language. Mortar — M, T, R are the key consonants. Material — matter — same word essentially.

And it’s very important because the lesson from ancient Jewish wisdom here is that you can bond people and unify people with a sense of common spiritual purpose, but if you’re going to eliminate the spiritual — if you’re going to take God entirely out of the picture — then you can unify people through materialism.

Get people in debt, use your credit cards, folks. Buy stuff. Acquire stuff. And then you can rent storage facilities to keep the stuff you bought that you don’t need.

But that way, we’re all in this together and we can all talk about the great commercials we saw during the football game. And we’re all in this great materialistic splurge because it will unite people.

Materialism that flows from the denial of God:

And what any tyrant knows is that you cannot enslave a people that believe in the Boss. You just can’t. And so, therefore, any tyranny will always begin to develop a hostility to traditional biblical faith, a hostility to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, a hostility to biblical commitment of any kind at all.

You always find that, whether it’s Cuba or the Soviet Union or anywhere else, secularism becomes the religion of the day. In fact, I gave it a name — secular fundamentalism, I think, is the religion of the day.

Now, it usually doesn’t begin with religious belief and God-centric thought and then get replaced by atheism. There is, rather, very often a process by which religion is eroded away until it can be overthrown altogether and replaced. And so atheistic Marxism was itself officially repackaged into a pseudo-Christian heresy called “liberation theology” that Barack Obama bought from his pastor for 23 years. I described this movement and its relationship to communism in my very first article:

But even allowing that Obama somehow never heard – and even more amazingly, never heard of – anything offensive ever coming from the mouth of his pastor, anyone even remotely familiar with Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and the Trinity United Church of Christ knows full well that both the pastor and the church are leading proponents of an extremely radical ideology known as “black liberation theology.” In short, liberation theology is a giant nut of Marxism covered with a candy coating of Jesus. Liberation theology is a reading of Christianity through Marxist eyes, and very pointedly NOT vice versa. Rather than forgiving its enemies, its adherents all over the world have routinely claimed that oppressors should be overthrown by violent means.

Liberation theology was developed in the early 1970s to pave the way for the communist Sandinistas to infiltrate – and subsequently dominate – Nicaraguan society. The Sandinistas understood full well that they had no hope of installing a Marxist regime in a country that was well over 90% Roman Catholic unless they could successfully subsume Catholicism into their cause of Marxism. And the wedding of Marxism with Christianity was brought about in a clear effort of the former to crush the latter.

Marxism – atheistic though it is – has frequently been characterized as a Christian heresy, in which a glorious new age utopia (a Marxist perversion of heaven) is to be ushered in by a transformation of human nature in a grand historical dialectic. In traditional Christianity, the ennobling of human nature takes place because of the creation of man in the image of God and because of the divine Christ’s Incarnation; in Marxism, the State assumes God’s place. Marxism offers rival theories of sin (private property) and salvation (collective ownership), a church that dispenses grace (the State), and a litany of saints (the proletariat and their Marxist leadership) and sinners (the bourgeoise and their capitalists enablers). In actual historical practice, in every single case, Marxism in a single century has led to more human slaughter and more degradation than all the religions of the world combined led to throughout all of human history.

Thus we see that it is not too much of a stretch for Christian heretics to embrace Marxism as a creed, since, as G.K. Chesterton pointed out, heresy is often truth gone mad. Liberation theology is the subsumption of one tiny truth (that God cares about the poor) wrapped by so much error that it resulted in a form of insanity that saw “Christians” embrace what clearly amounted to terrorism against governments and the very poor and innocent that they claimed to champion.

Liberalism as a movement has LONG realized what hard-core Marxism understood through “liberation theology” in the 1970s. Namely, that you could “Christianize” socialism by taking that little kernel of truth – that God cares for the poor – and then exploiting that to build a gigantic totalitarian nanny state that is itself a massive lie out of that tiny kernel of truth.

Don’t tell me that liberalism isn’t a close relative of Marxism that is only waiting to be given enough power to become exactly LIKE Marxism. Karl Marx provided a key statement about economic Marxism when he said:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

What we have here is the grounds for a State to seize wealth from those who produce and redistribute it to those who do not.

And I defy any liberal to explain how ideological liberalism repudiates and denounces this central premise of Marxism.

I have more to say about liberalism and how it has perverted the essence of Jesus and Christianity, and will do so in an article I have yet to write titled, “Why Do Depraved Democrats Deceitfully Distort Jesus To Demagogue Republicans???”

There was a “Far Side” cartoon that makes all the more sense to me now. A dinosaur was standing at the podium in front of a large auditorium full of dinosaurs. And he was explaining, “We’re facing a serious crisis, gentlemen. The world’s climates are changing, mammals are eating our eggs, and we have brains the size of a walnut.”

The religious side of liberalism is every bit as bankrupt as the political side, and the constantly shrinking membership bears that spiritual, moral and intellectual bankruptcy out.

I saw an article in the Los Angeles Times about liberal Judaism that brought out the fact that liberal “Judaism” was as much a Dodo bird as liberal “Christianity.” During the same week I spoke to a “Catholic” I frequently chatted with who – after telling me he was a “radical liberal” who believed in abortion and socialized medicine – proceeded to tell me that he utterly rejected the virgin birth of Christ. Which is of course a central defining belief of orthodox/traditional Catholicism. And that prompted me to do some thinking about these so-called “mainline” liberal religious movements, and just how utterly meaningless they are.

I better nip one objection in the bud immediately, realizing as I do that many liberals either can’t read very well or can’t understand what they read. The following article is about the astounding decline of “Conservative” Judaism. But “conservative” here has nothing to do with politics or even with theology. “Conservative Judaism” is every bit as liberal as any liberal mainline “Christian” denomination. It embraces homosexuality; it embraces the notion that the Bible is basically a meaningless book that can be interpreted and then reinterpreted according to constantly changing societal norms. Which is to say, Conservative Judaism ultimately stands for nothing, and isn’t “conserving” anything remotely important.

That said, “Conservative rabbis” met in Las Vegas to try to deal with a crisis: they are going extinct. What came out of the meeting is all the more hilarious:

Three hundred rabbis walk into a Las Vegas martini lounge. Bartenders scramble to handle the crowd — the rabbis are thirsty. Suddenly, an Elvis impersonator takes the stage.

We are faced with two possibilities.

One, this is the beginning of a joke.

Two, they don’t make rabbis the way they used to.

The Rabbinical Assembly, the clerical arm of Conservative Judaism, would have you believe the second message, or something like it. That’s why it launched its 2011 convention with a martini reception at a Las Vegas synagogue. The gathering was billed as an attempt to “rebrand” the Conservative movement, which has seen alarming declines in membership in recent years.

“We are in deep trouble,” Rabbi Edward Feinstein of congregation Valley Beth Shalom in Encino told the convention the next day. “There isn’t a single demographic that is encouraging for the future of Conservative Judaism. Not one.”

Those words could apply equally to a number of U.S. religious denominations, especially liberal Protestant and Jewish faiths. Membership is falling; churches and synagogues are struggling financially; and surveys show robust growth among the ranks of those who declare no religious affiliation.

The situation may be especially alarming to the Conservative movement because it was, for many years, the largest denomination in American Judaism. It was the solid center, more traditional than Reform, more open to change than Orthodoxy.

A decade ago, roughly one of every three American Jews identified as Conservative. Since then, Conservative synagogue membership has declined by 14% — and by 30% in the Northeast, the traditional stronghold of American Judaism.

By 2010, only about one in five Jews in the U.S. identified as Conservative, according to the American Jewish Congress.

The Reform and Orthodox movements also saw declines, although not nearly as steep. Reform Judaism for a time claimed the most adherents, but today that distinction goes to people who identify themselves as “just Jewish,” meaning they don’t associate with any of the traditional denominations. Many are entirely secular.

“We’re all in trouble,” said Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly and one of those trying to save the Conservative movement. Correcting herself, she said, “We’re not in trouble, but we’re in urgent need of rethinking the institutions of Jewish life.”

[…]

The movement’s problems, many agree, begin with its name, which has nothing to do with political conservatism and doesn’t accurately describe a denomination that accepts openly gay and lesbian rabbis and believes the Bible is open to interpretation. But that’s just for starters.

Deep dissatisfaction with the organizations that lead Conservative Judaism prompted a number of influential rabbis in 2009 to demand urgent change, warning, “Time is not on our side.” The group won promises of substantial change from the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents Conservative congregations, and helped prompt reforms in the institutions that train and represent rabbis.

A similar revolt by prominent Reform rabbis preceded that denomination’s continuing effort to reinvent itself, a project launched at L.A.’s Hebrew Union College last November.

So what does it mean for a religious movement to reinvent or rebrand itself?

“It’s one thing for a corporation to say ‘We’re going to reinvent ourselves,'” said David Roozen, director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research.

“Sometimes they get into another business,” he said. “A religion … can evolve, it can be reinterpreted, you can express it in a slightly different style, but you can’t just be doing Judaism one day and say ‘I’m going to sell cars’ the next.”

The Conservative rabbis won’t become car salesmen, but they batted around some fairly radical ideas and predictably stirred up some opposition.

There was talk of eliminating membership dues for synagogues or switching to a la carte “fee-for-service” plans — so that a parent who wants only to send his or her child to religious school won’t also be paying to support the congregation’s other programs. But some said dues give congregants a vital sense of ownership.

Wolpe, the Sinai Temple rabbi, said the movement needs a slogan, one that’s short enough to fit on a bumper sticker. He suggested “A Judaism of Relationships.”

“We don’t have a coherent ideology,” he told his fellow rabbis. “If you ask everybody in this room ‘What does Conservative Judaism stand for?’ my guess is that you’d get 100 different answers…. That may be religiously a beautiful thing, but if you want a movement, that’s not such a hot result.”

[…]

And then there was the name. Some prefer Conservative, which was adopted when the movement began in the 19th century. It denotes the founders’ determination to conserve the best of Jewish tradition while being open to prudent change. But others said it is one reason the movement is seen by young people as being hopelessly uncool.

One suggestion: Change it to Masorti, a Hebrew word meaning “traditional” that is used by Conservative Jews in Israel and Europe.

“If we really want to appeal to the new generation, if you want to create a real worldwide movement … we need a common name, and I think it needs to be a Hebrew name,” said Rabbi Felipe Goodman of Temple Beth Sholom in Las Vegas.

As the meeting ended, there were pledges to work toward meaningful change. One example of what that might look like is an effort to employ a new definition of kosher food that would require ethical treatment of the workers who produce it —something that is being called magen tzedek, or “seal of justice.”

“This is an answer for Conservative Judaism because it’s about the marketplace, it’s about the public square,” said Rabbi Morris Allen of Mendota Heights, Minn., who is leading the effort. Magen tzedek “shifts the entire message of who we are as a religious community. Suddenly, it’s about more than just what is said at the prayer service on Saturday morning.”

Let me begin my analysis by means of a contrast. Rabbi Morris Allen says, “This is an answer for Conservative Judaism because it’s about the marketplace, it’s about the public square.” By radical, radical contrast, Christianity is about Jesus Christ, who He is—God incarnate—and what He accomplished—the redemption of sinners who embrace His atoning death for the sin of humanity.

“Conservative Judaism … [is]… about the marketplace.” That is so sad. “We need to sell more widgets, or rebrand our widgets, or maybe produce a different kind of widget.”

One of the reasons that Judaism is so swiftly disappearing is because of atheism and a virulent form of Jewish secular humanism which basically holds that it’s perfectly okay to not believe in God as long as you act as though you did.

Dinesh D’Souza points out why precisely why this phenomenon would occur – given the enormous influence of liberalism in Judaism – in his examination of why liberal “Christian” churches are losing membership in droves:

“Unfortunately the central themes of some of the liberal churches have become indistinguishable from those of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, and the homosexual rights movement. Why listen to Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong drone on when you can get the same message and much more interesting visuals at San Francisco’s gay pride parade?”

And D’Souza provides a sizable pile of statistics to show that the traditional (i.e. evangelical) denominations and churches are growing leaps and bounds even as the liberal mainline churches are going the way of the Dodo bird.

His point, of course, is that these liberal religionists are dying out because they don’t stand for anything that has any spiritual power whatsoever.

Here is the story of Christian growth in the world today:

Compared to the world’s 2.3 billion Christians, there are 1.6 billion Muslims, 951 million Hindus, 468 million Buddhists, 458 million Chinese folk-religionists, and 137 million atheists, whose numbers have actually dropped over the past decade, despite the caterwauling of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Co. One cluster of comparative growth statistics is striking: As of mid-2011, there will be an average of 80,000 new Christians per day (of whom 31,000 will be Catholics) and 79,000 new Muslims per day, but 300 fewer atheists every 24 hours.

Africa has been the most stunning area of Christian growth over the past century. There were 8.7 million African Christians in 1900 (primarily in Egypt, Ethiopia, and South Africa); there are 475 million African Christians today, and their numbers are projected to reach 670 million by 2025. Another astonishing growth spurt, measured typologically, has been among Pentecostals and charismatics: 981,000 in 1900; 612,472,000 in 2011, with an average of 37,000 new adherents every day – the fastest growth in two millennia of Christian history.

Christianity – which views itself (and which I personally believe is) the fulfillment of the Jewish Scripture – is the fastest growing religion on the planet. Christianity is the world’s only universal religion; the only religion with a global reach. It is particularly spreading in the third world and in Asia. Soon, China will be the largest “Christian country” in the world. There may very well already be more Christians in China than there are in America. In Korea, Christians already outnumber Buddhists.

While mainline liberal Protestant and (mainline liberal) Catholic “Christianity” withers on the vine, evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity is exploding. And while Western Europe and America increasingly deny the Christendom that brought them to greatness in the first place – even as they increasingly become less and less great as a result – Christianity is taking deep abiding root in cultures whose transformation can only be described as “miraculous.”

Meanwhile, as the statistics prove and as Dinesh D’Souza explains, atheism is shrinking in spite of all its grandiose claims to represent the fulfillment of modernity and knowledge. “Nietzsche’s proclamation that ‘God is dead’ is now proven false,” D’Souza writes. “Nietzsche is dead. The ranks of the unbelievers are shrinking as a proportion of the world’s population… God is very much alive.” Secular humanists have long self-servingly claimed that the progression of “reason” and “science” would conquer religion, but this is now demonstrated to be a lie, a fairy tale of secularism.

Christianity stands for something. And as much as I may personally despise Islam, it too at least takes a powerful stand – even if it relies primarily on force and terrorism to make that stand. Atheism and secular humanism are only parisites hanging on to Christianity and its superior moral values, and the political liberalism that theological liberalism invariably leads to is the nihilism of objective moral truth all together.

Allow me to provide a concrete example of the empty nexus of liberal politics and liberal theology. Barack Obama, a quintessential theological and political liberal, has repeatedly stripped God out of the Declaration of Independence and its profound establishment of Creator God as the only and ultimate grounds for legitimate human dignity, freedom and rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” our founders assured mankind, and “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Not so with Obama. On his repeatedly stated version, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

But just what created us (random mutation or perhaps benevolent fairies?) and exactly how did we become endowed with these rights that most cultures and most worldviews and in fact most political systems throughout human history have denied? And further, why did the Judeo-Christian worldview which inspired these founding fathers be dumped on its head, such that its antithesis in the form of the radical homosexual agenda and abortion on demand be enthroned in its place?

Basically, the Judeo-Christian worldview – “Christendom,” if you like – has been treated like a salad bar in the Western Civilization that had been forged by Christianity, and secular humanists can pick out the parts that they like and throw away the rest. But it’s not a salad bar; Judeo-Christianity as both a religion and a worldview is far more like the foundations of a great building. And what these secular humanists have been doing is pulling out the foundational pillars one block at a time until there is nothing left to sustain the surrounding structure.

Which is precisely why the West – which used to be called “Christendom” – is now on the verge of complete collapse on virtually every level.

I see the war on terror, and from the start I have seen the glaring flaw in our strategy (yes, even when George Bush was waging it). Basically, we have confronted totalitarian Islam on the military, political and economic fronts. But we have utterly ignored the religious front – which is precisely the major front by which totalitiarian Islam has been attacking us. Like it or not, 9/11 was a religious act. And there has been no major movement whatsoever – either by the Western powers or by the movements within Islam itself – to confront the religious grounds of the totalitarian Islamists.

And the reason is because we have nothing to confront them with. Secular humanists/atheists have undermined public religious expression at every turn, while cultural relativists have contextualized religion in such a way to strip it of any spiritual power whatsoever. Now when we truly need true spiritual power to confront the demonic power motivating radical Islam, basically all we’ve got is allegorical dirt clods.

In the sphere of Islam, jihadists have the superior Qu’ranic argument that it is THEY who are carrying out Muhammad’s vision for Islam, not the liberal Westernized contextualizers who want to make very clear claims of Muhammad into metaphors and allegories representing something else. Muhammad was a man of genuine violence; he had been in some thirty military campaigns in his life; he had committed numerous genocidal campaigns against “infidels”; and he had another thirty military campaigns planned at the time of his death, including the conquest of Western Europe as the means to spread Islam (“submission”) and the call of Allahu Akbar (a comparative which means “Allah is greater”). If Muhammad is in any way, shape or form a representative paradigm of what it means to be “Muslim,” then the jihadists are right.

And liberalism – whether it be religious/theological or political/cultural liberalism – has exactly what to answer that? Other than mocking or trivializing it?

Did political liberals – like the liberal rabbis from the LA Times article above – truly believe that we overcome the threat of terrorism by simply changing the name to “overseas contingency operation” from “war on terror”?

As bad as the religion of Allah may be for a free society, it has a great deal of force when the competition is cultural nothingness, the decaying leftovers of “salad bar pseudo-Judeo-Christianity.”

2 Timothy 3:5 says of such “Christians”:

“They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!” (New Living Translation)

St. Paul told us, “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.” (2 Timothy 3:1). The risen and glorified Jesus told St. John of the seventh and final church age, “But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!” (Revelation 3:16).
of my mouth!

And it is with this final age of de-spiritualized, unglodly lukewarm “Christianity” and “Judaism” that makes God literally puke that staggering Western Civilization rises to the bell.

If anyone wants to know why I come across as angry from time to time in my blogging, it is because when I look around, I keep seeing the series of morally and even rationally terrible and despicable choices we have made right here in America that will invariably end with Antichrist, the Tribulation and Armageddon. And it will not have been God that made this happen, or God who chose this end for mankind; but rather mankind that chose this end for itself.

C.S. Lewis said:

“We can always say we have been the victims of an illusion; if we disbelieve in the supernatural this is what we always shall say. Hence, whether miracles have really ceased or not, they would certainly appear to cease in Western Europe as materialism became the popular creed. For let us make no mistake. If the end of the world appeared in all the literal trappings of the Apocalypse, if the modern materialist saw with his own eyes the heavens rolled up and the great white throne appearing, if he had the sensation of being himself hurled into the Lake of Fire, he would continue forever, in that lake itself, to regard his experience as an illusion and to find the explanation of it in psycho-analysis, or cerebral pathology. Experience by itself proves nothing. If a man doubts whether he is dreaming or waking, no experiment can solve his doubt, since every experiment may itself be part of the dream. Experience proves this, or that, or nothing, according to the preconceptions we bring to it.” (God in the Dock, “Miracles,” pp. 25-26).

The problem with liberalism is that it “fundamentally transforms” whatever it touches – whether Christianity, Judaism or fiscal and economic reality – into a game of make-believe pretend.

Margaret Thatcher put the end-state of econimic liberalism succinctly: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” And then comes the collapse.

When radical Islamist jihadists attack, you can’t answer or fight with make-believe. Any more than you can fight massive debt with make-believe mass-printed dollars.

My one consolation is this: I’ve cheated; I’ve skipped ahead and read the last pages of Revelation. God – and most definitely not Allah or secular humanism or liberal mainline pseudo religiousity – wins in the end. And when God wins in the end, via the return of Jesus Christ as true King of kings and Lord of lords, He will win in a very literal way indeed.

What a nasty, horrible God is the one in which they believe. What nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings. What a nasty, cynical thing they do to promote their own religion by using this tragedy and other recent catastrophic events to “win converts” for Jesus.

Naming them charlatans and hypocrites does not do justice to the utter lack of compassion that resides in their hearts.

And the blogger cites my blog as an example of a fundamentalist who argues that God struck Japan “because the Japanese are all atheists.”

Well, first thing, did I actually even say that? I quote myself from that article:

But is Japan’s unbelief the reason why Japan just got hit with an awful tsunami?

My answer is, “How on earth should I know?”

I cite passages of Scripture that clearly indicate that a disaster does not necessarily mean that God is judging someone, such as Luke 13:1-5. I could have just as easily also cited passages such as John 9:1-3 about Jesus’ distinction between suffering and sin. I could have cited 2 Peter 3:9, describing God’s patience with sinners rather than His haste to judge. These passages aren’t at all out of tune with what I was saying. And I actually DO single out by name for criticism men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who have immediately pronounced the wrath of God following some disaster.

I begin my article saying, “That headline is a deliberate provoker. But please let me explain why I used that headline before you erupt one way or another.” Then I proceed to state two undisputed facts: that Japan is atheist, and that Japan got hit by a disaster. I urge someone to actually read the article and reflect on the possibilities. But Boomantribune is an example of most of the atheists who cross-posted or commented to my article by NOT being someone who wanted to read or reflect; he or she is someone who refused to look beneath atheist ideology and immediately began demonizing the other side to “win converts” for his religion of atheism. [And let’s get this straight: atheism IS a religion. “Religion” does not need to depend upon belief in God, or Buddhism would not qualify as a religion. The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion, and it is a simple fact that atheism has every component that any religious system has].

You can’t have a valid argument with someone like Boomantribune, I have learned. They are either too ignorant, or too dishonest, or both to accurately represent the other side’s position or arguments. They create straw men and then demolish claims that Christians like me aren’t even making.

Boomantribune viciously attacks me as harboring the “nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings.” But I end my article on Japan by saying:

You need that gift of divine grace. I need that gift of divine grace. And the people of Japan desperately need it today.

I pray for those who are in Japan. I pray for their deliverance from both the tsunami and from their unbelief. And I will join with many other Christians who will send relief to the Japanese people, with prayers that they will look not at me, but at the Jesus who changed my heart and my life, and inspired me to give to others.

In the US, anyway, they don’t. Here’s just one study, done in 2003: The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions…Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so…The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times.

And this is “secular” people who aren’t particularly religious. A lot of people rarely ever go to church, but still believe in God (basically 90% of Americans belive in God). Since the evidence is rather straightforward that the more religious one is, the more giving one is, it is justified to conclude that atheists who are less religious than the merely “secular” are even LESS giving.

And, guess what? My church has already taken its first of several offerings for Japan, and I have already given – and plan to give again.

Also, unlike too many blogs – particularly leftwing blogs, in my experience – I don’t delete anything. When the Daily Kos hatefully attacked Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol and claimed that Bristol Palin had been impregnated by her own father with a baby, and that Sarah Palin faked being pregnant – only to have that hateful and vile lie blown away by Bristol giving birth to a child of her own – they scrubbed it like nothing had happened.

I’m not that despicable. Every single article I have ever written remains on my blog. And with all due respect, I think that gives me more credibility, not less: I don’t hit and run and then scrub the evidence of my lies.

If I post something that turns out to be wrong, I don’t destroy the evidence; I stand up and take responsibility for my words. I apologize and correct the record. As I did in the case above.

That, by the way, is the first finger, the finger of moral dishonesty pointing back at these atheists.

That’s not the way the other side plays. History is replete with atheist regimes (e.g. ANY of the officially state atheist communist regimes) destroying the record and any debate; history is replete with atheist-warped “science” making one claim after another that turned out to be entirely false. As examples, consider Java Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man and the various other hoaxes that the “scientific community rushed to embrace in their rush to falsify theism. In some cases “scientists” created an entire community – or even an entire race of people – around totally bogus evidence in “It takes a village” style. There was the bogus notion of “uniformitarianism” by which the “scientific community” ridiculed creationists for decades until it was proven wrong by Eugene Shoemaker who documented that the theory of “catastrophism” that they had advanced for millennia had been correct all along. And then all of a sudden the same evolutionary theory that had depended upon uniformitarianism suddenly morphed into a theory that depended upon catastrophism. It morphed so that it was equally true with both polar opposites.

In any words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to prove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

There is NEVER an admission of guilt or an acknowledgment of error by these people. They simply suppress or destroy the evidence, or “morph” their argument, or anything but acknowledge that just maybe they should be open-minded and question their presuppositions.

For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. -Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

But those are extremely rare, indeed. The rest of the atheist-assuming “scientific community” is all about saying, “Move on, folks. Nothing to see here. Why don’t you look at our new sleight-of-hand display over in this corner instead?”

Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not.”[ 1] Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of “the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works.” This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation to the “lunatic fringe” of paleontologists who reported that “they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other.”[ 2] Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of “stamp collector.”

[…]

Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The former is then classified as knowledge, and the latter as mere belief. The distinction is of critical importance, because only knowledge can be objectively valid for everyone; belief is valid only for the believer, and should never be passed off as knowledge. The student who thinks that 2 and 2 make 5, or that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen, or that the theory of evolution is not true, is not expressing a minority viewpoint. He or she is ignorant, and the job of education is to cure that ignorance and to replace it with knowledge. Students in the public schools are thus to be taught at an early age that “evolution is a fact,” and as time goes by they will gradually learn that evolution means naturalism.

In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary. That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same. All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge.

I stand behind a tradition that has stood like an anvil while being pounded by one generation of unbelievers after another. That tradition remains constant because it is founded upon the unchanging Word of God. My adversaries constantly change and morph their positions, all the while just as constantly claiming that their latest current iteration is correct.

That is the second finger of intellectual dishonesty which so thoroughly characterizes atheism and anything atheism seems to contaminate with its assumptions.

Lastly, there is the finger of ethical dishonesty that is the ocean that the “walking fish” of atheism swims in. [Btw, when I see that fish riding a bicycle I’ll buy their “walking fish” concept].

Basically, for all the “moral outrage” of atheists who want to denounce Christians for their God’s “evil judgments,” atheism itself has absolutely no moral foundation to do so whatsoever. And the bottom line is that they are people who attack the five-thousand year tradition of Scripture with their feet firmly planted in midair.

To put it simply, William Lane Craig demolishes any shred of a claim that atheism can offer any ultimate meaning, any ultimate value, or any ultimate purpose whatsoever. And so atheism denounces Christianity and religion from the foundation of an entirely empty and profoundly worthless worldview. Everyone should read this incredibly powerful article. I guarantee you will learn something, whatever your perspective on religion.

The thing I would say is that atheists denounce God and Christians from some moral sort of moral posture. Which comes from what, exactly? Darwinism, or more precisely, social Darwinism? The survival of the fittest? A foundation that comes from the “secure” footing of a random, meaningless, purposeless, valueless and entirely accidental existence?

As atheists tee off on God and at Christians for being “nasty” and “horrible,” what is their foundation from which to judge?

First of all, what precisely would make one a “nasty” or “horrible” atheist?

“God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just… I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.”

Mao Tse Tung was an atheist:

“Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?” [Mao Tse Tung, Little Red Book, “Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle chapter 21”].

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

Joseph Goebbels, a top member of Hitler’s inner circle, noted in his personal diary, dated 8 April 1941 that “The Führer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.” Now, one may easily lie to others, but why lie to your own private diary?

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Albert Speer, another Nazi in Hitler’s intimate inner circle, stated that Hitler said, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion… Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.” [Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998].

Mao put his disregard for human life and the lives of his own people to terrible work:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

Did that somehow disqualify him from being an atheist? How? Based on what foundation?

Let me simply point out that the most evil human beings in human history and the most murderous and oppressive political regimes in human history have the strange tendency to be atheist. It would seem to me that these atheists should frankly do a lot less talking smack and a lot more shutting the hell up. But two verses from Scripture illustrate why they don’t: 1) The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1) and 2) “A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind” (Proverbs 18:2).

Let’s talk about “evil” for a few moments. I have already begun addressing the “third finger” that points back at atheists when they denounce Christians or God. But the idea of “evil” makes that “finger” the middle one.

Christians talk about evil. A lot of people do. Even atheists routinely do. But what is their foundation for evil? What is “evil”? Most give answers such as, “Murder or rape is evil.” But those would at best only qualify as examples of evil – not a definition that would allow us to make moral judgments. Christians have an actual answer. They point out that “evil” is a perversion from the way things ought to be. But what “oughtness” is there in a random, purposeless, meaningless and valueless universe that was spat out by nothing more than pure chance?

Let’s just say at this point that the atheists are right in what is in reality a straw man attack of God? So what? I ask “so what?” because even if what they were saying were somehow true, by what standard would either God or Christians be “nasty” or “horrible”? What is the objective, transcendent standard that stands above me, that stands above every Christian on the planet, that stands above the entire human race across time and space and holds it accountable, such that if Christians or even God do X or say Y, or believe Z they are “nasty” or “horrible”?

It turns out that they don’t have one. And in fact, their very worldview goes so far as to literally deny the very possibility of one. At best – and I would argue at worst – we are trapped in a world in which might makes right, and the most powerful dictator gets to make the rules. Because there is nothing above man that judges man and says, “This is the way, walk in it.” There is only other men – and men disagree with one another’s standards – leaving us with pure moral relativism.

And if moral relativism is true, then the atheists STILL lose. It would be a tie, given that atheists have no more claim to being “good” than any other human being or group of human beings, no matter how despicable and murderous they might be. But they would lose because there are a lot fewer atheists (137 million) than there are, say, Christians (2.3 billion). And it only remains for Christians to disregard their superior moral and ethical system just long enough to rise up and annihilate all the smart-mouthed atheists, and then say afterward, “Boy, we sure feel guilty for having done THAT. Let’s pray for forgiveness!” And the only possible defense atheists would have would be to abandon their “survival of the fittest” mentality and embrace superior Christian morality and cry out, “Thou shalt not kill!”

Even if Christians don’t wipe out the atheists physically, most would readily agree that the Christian worldview is still far stronger than the atheist one. Dinesh D’Souza makes a great argument to illustrate this on pages 15-16 of What’s So Great About Christianity that shows why religion is clearly the best team. He says to imagine two communities – one filled with your bitter, cynical atheists who believe that morality just happened to evolve and could have evolved very differently; and one filled with Bible-believing Christians who embrace that life and their lives have a purpose in the plan of a righteous God who put His moral standards in our hearts. And he basically asks, “Which community is going to survive and thrive?”

As a Christian, I don’t have all the answers (although I can certainly answer the question immediately above). I am a human being and my mind cannot contain the infinite plan of an infinitely complex and holy God. But I have placed my trust in a God who made the world and who has a plan for His creation which He is bringing to fruition. And that worldview doesn’t just give me explanatory powers that atheism by its very nature entirely lacks, but it gives me a strength that I never had before. Even when evil and disaster and suffering befall me beyond my ability to comprehend, I can say with Job – the master of suffering:

“But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and he will stand upon the earth at last. And after my body has decayed, yet in my body I will see God! I will see him for myself. Yes, I will see him with my own eyes. I am overwhelmed at the thought!” Job 19:25-27 (NLT).